# Appendix — Brumfield v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_0305%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1987
- **Citation:** 484 U.S. 822

## Text

(3) Supreme Court, U.S.
86-1905 72a & D

NUMBER MAY 80 1987

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 1986 TERM
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD II, Petitioner
Vv
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDIX

Arax T. Brumfield

2921 Kirk Lane

Bossier City, Louisiana
(318) 746-7045

Counsel of Record

CLERK
ciate secenel

— =

4 AP in til toe

NUMBER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 1986 TERM
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD II, Petitioner
| Vv
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDIX

Arax T. Brumfield

2921 Kirk Lane

Bossier City, Louisiana
(318) 746-7045

Counsel of Record

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transcript - Brumfield Conviction...1
Transcript - Sentencing........... 67
Petition-Habeas Corpus............. 81
Report & Recommendation
SPT eT eee Tee eee 109
Memorandum - Brief in support of
Response and Answer to Petition...116
Judgment Dismissing Habeas
oe seeen oe ht
ee ee eee eee 168
Motion to Supplement Transcript...170
Opposition to Motion to

Supplement Transcript.......cceeee 174
Memorandum to Counsel of

og a Gk.” re 190
Decision of 5th Circuit Court

i SEIS ch dase ewe eee wees veeeees 196

R
; !
iS
f
j
es :
i a
. ‘
)
Bi.
' me
co
3
a
ul
' ; ; 4
| _ |
‘
bY :
wa
I
=
; ;
'
* on i qe ~ ; J
( ; , . eee r = . : ree eae ,
; " 9 ovo. ae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

Plaintiff,:
-versus- : Criminal No.
JIMMIE A. BRUMFIELD, II, : 82-50004=02

Defendant.: Volume VI
TRIAL COURT: Honorable Tom Stagg, Judge
TRANSCRIPT: Reporter's Official Tran-
script in Above Cause
LOCATION: United States District
Court, Shreveport, LA
DATE: June 14,, 1982

TRANSCRIPT FILED:

BILL HOGAN, RPR
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
P. O. Box 441
Shreveport, Louisiana 71162

(318) 226-5293

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Mr. A. M. Stroud, Attorney

P. O. Drawer 1126

Shreveport, LA 71163

Mr. Carl A. Stewart, Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

Federal Building, 500 Fannin

Shreveport, LA 71101

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

Mr. J. Stacy Freeman, Attorney

1648 Benton Road

Bossier City, LA 71111

BE IT REMEMBERED that in the United
States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Shreveport Divi-
sion, in the United States Courthouse, in
the City of Shreveport, Parish of Caddo,
State of Louisiana, on the 14th day of

June, 1982, the above entitled cause came

on for a ruling before the Honorable Tom

Stagg, Judge of said Court, and the
proceedings on the ruling are in the
words and figures following, to-wit:

THE COURT: The Court has listened
to the testimony of a considerable number
of witnesses for three days. I took in
excess of a hundred pages of trial notes
while the testimony unfolded. I have
read all of the exhibits that were filed
in evidence as transcripts of recorded
statements and other documentary evidence
that was submitted. And I'm now required
to make findings of fact and conclusions
of law based on the testimony and the
evidence in the case.

There are a few preliminary facts
concerning the defendant, Brumfield, who
served as the attorney for a person well-
known to this Court to be an escape art-
ist of sorts. And he served as his at-

torney back in 1979, in late 1979, when

hideaieneteiamtna aerate

Mr. White pled guilty in this Court on
marijuana charges and was sentenced, I
think in December, and transported to the
DeSoto Parish Jail from which Mr. White
escaped the following day. But while Mr.
White was in and out of the DeSoto Parish
business, he stayed in the Shreveport
Jail, I believe my memory serves me cor-
rectly that he was in and out of the
Shreveport Jail for four or five months
during 1979. Only a short part of that
time was he represented by Mr. Brumfield
as an associate of another attorney, Mr.
Graham Rogers.

Mr. White, the Court finds as a fact
and it has been stipulated so it's not
necessary really to find it that Mr.
White was a Federal prisoner when he es-
caped on November 1, 1980, having been
housed in the city jail pursuant to a

writ of this Court and that it's easy to

me to find that he walked out of the city
jail on November 1, 1980. Of course,
this Court was the trier of fact on that
charge of escape for which Mr. White was
convicted on December 14, 1981.

It's also true that Mr. Donald E.
Snyder, who was tried in this Courtroom
on Monday and Tuesday of last week or
Tuesday and Wednesday, rather, of last
week, was the cellmate of Mr. White at
the time of the escape and he was con-
victed by this Court on charges that he
was involved in the conspiracy and abet-
ting and assisting in the escape o Mr.
White. And that conviction was based on
evidence of Mr. Snyder's delaying tactics
in order to distract the jailer and to
give Mr. White the opportunity to get to
the jail elevator and out of the build-
ing.

One of the questions in this case

then is whether Mr. Brumfield had a part
to play in this same scenario which has
been played out in this Courtroom now for
the third time. Before the date of the
escape on November 1, the testimony shows
that Mr. Brumfield was contacted by Mr.
White's mother and she stated that Mr.
White had been apprehended in Florida,
Berra Beach, I think; and asked Mr. Brum-
field to consider to represent him, in-
structed Mr. Brumfield to negotiate the
fee with Mr. White. Mr. Brumfield went
to Florida to confer with White and while
he was there, he met Randy Costales for
the first time, who had been with Mr.
White at the time of his arrest -in
Florida. And he met with Dale White who
is the son of Garvin Dale White whom Mr.
Brumfield knew from the days of his rep-
resentation of Mr. White while Mr. White

was in the Mansfield Jail. I recall that

Pee

Mr. Brumfield or someone or Mr. White
said that his son was brought to the jail
but the folks in Mansfield wouldn't let
the son see Mr. Garvin Dale White, but I
remember that the fact of it is that Mr.
Brumfield already knew Dale White but he
met Randy Costales in Florida for the
first time.

I have dozens of edge tabs and other
markers to key me to certain bits of tes-
timony so if I seem to you to wander, it
is, in fact, true that I am trying to put
this together in as cohesive an order as
I can. If it would be in the future
necessary for this opinion to be reduced
to writing, I reserve the right to edit
and to use proper grammar but not to
change the substance of the findings or
the conclusions.

In any event, while Mr. Brumfield

was in Florida, Mr. White was transferred

to Shreveport and arrived here, I think
on the thirteenth. The jail reggister
shows that his first visitor was on Oc-
tober 14 when Mrs. Brumfield went to the
jail to see Mr. White and the record
shows that on the fifteenth, Mr. Brum-
field came back from Florida and went to
the jail to see Mr. White at ten o'clock
at night -- eight o'clock at night,
twenty hundred hours.

Randy Costales arrrived in
Shreveport from Florida on Sunday the
nineteenth of October. The testimony is
that he was bringing some suitcases and a
flight bag and a briefcase and other mat-
ter belonging to Mr. White which Mr. Cos-
tales had gathered together in Florida.
He came to Shreveport and was housed at
the office, law office across the street
from the defendant's residence. There is

a residential residence at 2920 Kirk

2 owt “a

Lane; there is an office residence at
2921 Kirk Lane. Mr. Costales moved into
a bedroom in that residence on the
nineteenth. The record shows that he
stayed at that residence the nineteenth,
the twentieth, the twenty-first, twenty-
second, and twenty-third, that on the
twenty-fourth, he traveled to Franklinton
with the Brumfields; stayed there the
twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth; went over to
Covington on the twenty-seventh; came
back to Shreveport late in the night of
the twenty-seventh and the record shows
that Mr. Costales was left at the airport
by Mrs. Brumfield sometime during the
mid-afternoon. Mrs. Brumfield didn't
recall at which terminal or did not know
what he -- what was his destination.

When they were in Franklinton, Mr.
Costales was introduced to the

defendant's brother, Billy Brumfield, as

or in the name of Randy Conn. He tes-
tified -- Billy Brumfield testified that
the introduction was under the name of
Costales and that he merely misunderstood
that it was Conn but that's neither here
nor there. It doesn't prove much of any-
thing. But the Government's Exhibit
Forty-Seven, which is the statement given
by Billy Brumfield, a length statement
given to Marshal -- United States Marshal
Fortier on November 4 indicates to the
contrary that Billy said several timess
that Randy was introduced as Conn rather
than otherwise. In any event, after the
Franklinton visit where they slept in
Billy Brumfield's trailer, ate at their
family table, shot rifles at targets and
stayed tagether for three days; they
returned to Shreveport and Mr. Costales
on Tuesday the twenty-eighth left for

parts or parts unknown. But while he was

10

in Shreveport, the record indicates that
he visited with Mr. White in the jail at
least on one occasion. Mr. Brumfield had
access to the jail and had the ability to
bring Mr. Costales to the jail to see Mr.
White.

The record indicates an extract of
the Government's Exhibit on the jail log
shows that between the time that Mr.
White was transferred to Shreveport on
the thirteenth of the month of October
that Mr. Brumfield visited or signed in
to visit with Mr. White between the thir-
teenth of October and the first of Novem-
ber that he signed in to see him at least
fifteen times. Only on one of those oc-
casions does the record show that Mr.
Costales was with hin.

When Mr. Brumfield was asked on the
witness stand how did it happen that Mr.

Costales was there when he went -- when

11

he -- Brumfield went to visit White, he
answered: "I don't know. I didn't know
him." Later, he testified in an answer
to other questions that he understood Mr.
Costales was a very good friend or family
relation of Garvin Dale White. He was
asked by Mr. Stroud: "Well, why,, if you
just met him, did you invite him to say
in your house?" To which Mr. Brumfield
disingenously answered: "Because he took
-- he chaffeured me around in Florida and

he took care of me and I'm just a country

boy." To which, under his voice, I heard
Mr. Stroud answer: "I'm a country boy,
too." So, whether or not one fellow had

reason to believe the other fellow is
what this lawsuit is all about. It suf-
fices to say that Mr. Costales was a
close associate of Mr. Brumfield -- of
Mr. White's and for some reason, he

stayed with the Brumfield's for the bet-

i2

|
4
a
4
i

ter part of ten days. And I think it's
clearly shown in the record and from the
concrete evidence before this Court that
Mr. Costales was ultimately at the air-
port in Little Rock when Mr. Brumfield --
Mr. White got there or arrived there un-
der some circumstances which the record
does not indicate.

During the time that Mr. White
landed in the Shreveport Jail, Mr. Brum-
field went to work with the agents of the
Drug Enforcement Administration in an at-
tempt to negoiate a plea agreement for
Mr. White directed I presume towards the
shortening of his sentence since I have
read quite a number of the defendant's
notes that he made during those nego-
tiations. My name appeared in there
several times, length of sentence ap-
peared in there more than once and it

seemed to be some concern being evidenced

about how long Mr. White would have to
stay in jail. I received or directed
that those documents be received in
evidence to show that there was an ongo-
ing negoiation between the agents for the
DEA, agents for the Government and Mr.
Brumfield.on behalf of Mr. White.

Both Mr. White and Mr. Brumfield
testified that at the time of the escape,
they considered the negoiations were con-
tinuing. The DEA agent who was involved
most heavily in those negoiations tes-
tified that any plans that they had been
working on had been called off on October
31, because not much of the information
revealed by Mr. White could be verified.
Mr. Hawkins in answer to a question said:
"He had generally given me only surface
information." The fact that they were
discussing plea negoiations together

isn't dissentitive in a finding of

14

iiss ae

whether Mr. Brumfield is guilty of con-
spiracy or guilty of aiding and abetting
an escape. It does stand to buttress Mr.
Brumfield's testimony that that was the
cause of a large number of trips by him
to the city jail. And I notice that some
of those trips occurred at one-thirty on
the sixteenth, one-fifty on the seven-
teenth, at three-thirty on the twentieth.
I'm skipping those that occurred late at
night. There were times of meetings at
the city jail or signings in at the city
jail that would lead you to believe that
that would be a time of day during which
he would have been there in v.he company
of the DEA agent for the purpose of dis-
cussing information. In any event, the
testimony of Mr. Hawkins is that the ne-
gotiations had come to a halt. Mr.
Brumfield's notes had it on the last one:

"Why is Mr. Hawkins taking such a hard

io

line on the escape?", which, read one
Way, says we're in difficulty; read
ancther way, it has an innocent explana-
tion. In any event, I find that Mr.
Brumfield could not have been at the city
jail on the night of November 1 for fur-
ther discussions of plea bargains. Those
possibilities had diminished by that
time. And, furthermore, this jail log is
interesting because it shows that on Oc-
tober 30, at 7:40 P.M., Mr. Brumfield
went to the jail and at 7:40 saw both
Garvin Dale White and Donald Snyder at
the same time or the record shows it to
be at the same time. There was some tes-
timony to the effect that one man was
there for forty-five minutes before the
other man was brought in on one of those
nights. The same thing occurred on Oc-
tober 31, Friday night, at 8:35, Mr.

Brumfield's shown, his signature is shown

16

to have signed out for both Garvin Dale
White and Donald Snyder at 8:35. So for
two nights running Mr. Brumfield talked
to both Garvin Dale White and Don Snyder
together. On the night of the escape, he
told the jailer after he asked for Garvin
White to bring out Mr. Snyder, too. It
would be hard for me to believe that Mr.
Brumfield would be discussing confiden-
tial information on the inner workings of
the narcotics traffic in this country to
lead to plea discussions with the Govern-
ment and have those conversations going
on in the presence of Mr. Snyder, if that
is, in fact, what they were talking
about.

There were several police officers
who observed Mr. Brumfield's pickup
truck. These officers tesified that they
came to work at nine-thirty to go out on

the evening shift and that the pickup

17

truck would be on the parking lot parked
in a place where one or more of them
usually parked, so it was noticeable, and
that it would still be there when they
came out in the morning. I think the
presence of that truck on that parking
lot under those circumstances has an in-
nocent explanation; at least, it could
have in part.

On the twenty-fourth when Mr. Brum-
field went with Mr. Costales and his wife
and baby to Franklinton, the witness
Rodriguez testified that he was asked to
go fix it because it wouldn't start. And
it was left on the parking lot Friday
night. It would have been there Saturday
morning and it would have been there
Saturday night and it would have been
there Sunday morning and it would have
been there Sunday night. And Mr.

Rodriguez testified that he sent his man

18

Was Cie age

to fix it early in the morning of the
twenty-seventh and the keys were under
the floormat and the door was left un-
locked. Mr. Brumfield and his and Cos-
tales and wife and baby got home from
Franklinton late on the night of the
twenty-seventh. Mr. Brumfield is shown
to have checked into the jail to see Mr.
White at 10:20 in that evening. And any
policeman who came to work at nine-
thirty that evening would have seen no
truck -- would have seen the truck be-
cause it had there all weekend and up at
least to the time of ten-twenty when Mr.
Brumfield came. Mr. Brumfield could not
recall whether he took that truck home on
Monday night or Tuesday morning.

There is a slightly -- there is a
statement given by Mr. Brumfield to the
United States Marshal -- would you hand

me that sheet on top, please?

19

(indicating)

(Docment tendered)

THE COURT: In the statement given
on -- to the Marshal on November 5,
there's a slightly different explanation
where on Friday, Mr. Brumfield said that
he and Costales drove to the jail but
Costales decided not to go in and called
Mrs. Brumfield to come pick him up. Upon
completing his business at the jail, Mr.
Brumfield couldn't locate his truck keys
so he called for Mr. Costales to come
pick him up and he met Costales on the
corner, left the truck on the parking
lot. This is from Government's Exhibit
Fifty. After which, they soon departed
for Franklinton. Now that there is --
under either version, the presence of the
truck is explained.

On other occasions testified to by

the police officers and they said they

20

weal TY

saw it on most of the nights in question
up until the night of the escape. The
truck could easily have been there be-
cause Mr. Brumfield would be visiting
with Mr. White. The officers noted the
truck when they came to work and they
said that was around nine-thirty. The
book shows that on the twenty-eighth, Mr.
Brumfield arrived at 8:05, on the twenty-
ninth, Mr. Brumfield came to the jail at
7:08. He could have still been there.
On the thirtieth, he came to the jail at
7:40, on the thirty-first, he came to the
jail at 8:35. The truck could have still
been there when the officers came to
work. There's a very large question of
whether the truck was there -- in other
words, it's possible for the officers
coming on duty to testify that the truck
stayed on the parking lot. And par-

ticularly, it would have been noticeable

21

if it -- each time Mr. Brumfield parked
it in the same place.

Anyway, coming up to November 1, at
8:35, Mr. Brumfield signed into the city
jail to see White. Mr. Blake gave him
the book and he put his name in it. Mr.
-- Mr. Jenkins started down the hall to
get Mr. White. Mr. Brumfield began a
conversation with the lady jailer, Bar-
bara Dickson, about a family succession
proceeding she had asked Brumfield about
to handle for her. Mr. Brumfield tes-
tified that he dialed his wife, who's
also a lawyer, and when she answered the
phone, he testified he said: "Barbara,
pick up." And Barbara picked up a phone
towards the back of the booking desk
where she was stationed. And that caused
her to have a back turned to the hallway
which led to the cells where Mr. White

and Mr. Snyder were. Mr. Jenkins, after

22

-- first, the sequences that he -- first,
he signed the book to see White. Mr.
Jenkins left the desk to get White. Then
Mr. Brumfield asked Ms. Dickson about the
succession legal matter. Fourth step,
Mr. Brumfield picks up a phone on the
front desk to call to Arax and then he
said: "Pick up, Barbara." And Barbara
goes over to the rear phone to speak to
Mrs. Brumfield. Jenkins lets White out
of the Federal cell and closes the door.
It is either that someone -- Mr. Jenkins
asked Mr. Brumfield if he wants to see
Snyder or Jimmie asked for Snyder -- it
doesn't matter. It occurred while Mr.
Jenkins and Mr. White are leaving the
Federal cell. Mr. Brumfield answers or
nods in the affirmative. He testified he
said: "Yes, if he wants to talk to me."
Whereupon, Mr. Jenkins turned around and

went back to the cell, opened the cell

23

door and told Mr. Snyder to get dressed.
Mr. Snyder then went to the sleeping area
to put on his coveralls. Mr. Jenkins
said he stepped in the cell entry way and
out of the hallway. Mr. Brumfield, at
that point, is either at the booking desk
or on his way to the ‘eontecenes room to

..K to some drunk named Miller. And Mr.
White continues up the hall. § The
elevator comes up, the door opens; Mr.
White either signaled that elevator or it
fortuiously showed up. He got on the
elevator, roughly shoved the trustee to
one side, operated the button to the
first floor and walked out off the jail
to the parking lot.

Now Mr. White was dressed in a jog-
ging suit or a sweatsuit. Anyway,
civilian rather than jail clothing. It's
funny. Mr. White testified that he wore

that suit because it was cold in the

24

cell, chilly in the cell, but Mr. White's
cellmate, Snyder, was in that same cell
with him and he was clad only in his un-
dershorts. That's an inconsistency that
crowds in on you when you try to take
these things to part one step at a time.
This, you will remember, was on November
1, and the man well have been in his un-
dershorts because it was more comfort-
able. I found as a fact in his trial
that he was in his undershorts because it
was a part of' a scheme to delay the
jailer at the jail cell door, and he was
convicted on those facts. And those
facts have not changed since Tuesday's
trial of last week until this week's
trial.

Anyway, when he got to the first
floor, Mr. White calmly walked out of the
building. He said it was not calm, that

his heart was racing; but he went to the

25

pickup which he recognized as having
formerly belonged to himself and that he
had some keys hidden in that truck under-
neath -- in a magnetic keybox underneath
the toolbox in the back of the pickup.
This explanation could as easily be true
as untrue. He said he had the vehicle
specially fixed up for his girlfriend and
it was to haul a speedboat and that he
hid keys under the toolbox and he also
hid keys by taping a set to the radiator
pipe. One can only wonder if he was
giving that truck to his girlfriend, why
did he hide keys in it? Well, neverthe-
less, that has nothing to do with this
case except he said he had hidden keys in
the pickup truck. It is to be noted thax
Mr. Brumfield left that truck on the
parking lot for several ,iays before thax
with keys under the floormat in the fron

seat, because Mr. Rodriguez says that's

26

i ee hi

where they were and that's where he left
them. It really isn't too critical.
Either Mr. Brumfield left his keys, a set
of keys under the floormat or Mr. White
had a set of keys handily fixed where he
quickly could get to them. In any event,
he took off in that pickup truck and
drove to Mr. Brumfield's house, he said,
by a meandering route, that he looked at
a map ina filling station window and
then drove over the Interstate and off
the Interstate on Airline Drive to Kirk
Lane and left that Kirk Lane area in a
Lincoln Continental belonging to Mr. and
Mrs. Brumfield. And he went to North
Little Rock where he got on a -- some
manner of private aircraft and eluded law
enforcement officials for the next eleven
months.

There's a great deal of wonderment

to what happened immediately after Mr. --

27

important what happened before and the
week before, but what happened after, the
immediate aftermath of the escape? The
trustee who had ridden on the elevator
down with Mr. White came back up and told
Mr. Jenkins what had happened. Where was
Mr. Jenkins? He was still standing at
the jail cell door waiting for Donald
Snyder to put on his overalls. He --
Jenkins said -- he testified he slammed
the door shut and went to the booking
desk and where was Barbara Dickson? Bar-
bara Dickson was still talking o:r the
telephone to Mrs. Brumfield about the
succession matter. If this plan was
hoped to succeed and it did, it succeeded
marvelously well, because both of the
people that needed to be distracted were
still distracted while Mr. White went
down the elevator, out in the yard, inte

the pickup and off the parking lot. And

28

mhvigin Shas oy

until the trustee got back up to the jail
to tell Mr. Jenkins what had happened,
both the jailer -- both of the jailers
were still distracted from watching any-
thing to do with the elevator door. Mrs.
Dickson said she immediately hung up on
Arax and called downstairs to the jail.
Mr. Jenkins rode the elevator down to the
first floor to look for Mr. White and to
alert the police department about the es-
cape. He didn't see White so he went
back upstairs and he went to the con-
ference room to tell Mr. Brumfield what
had happened. Jenkins testified that
when he told the defendant about -- Mr.
Brumfield about the escape, Mr. Brumfield
said*he had to be kidding. Don't -- you
know -- he thought his leg wWas being
pulled particularly since he had suffered
through the Mansfield escape period. Mr.

Jenkins assured him it wasn't so. To

29

which Mr. Brumfield responded that he's
better write a statement because they, I
presume police, they would want to talk
to him about it. The Government's Ex-
hibit Eleven is the -- is a copy of the
handwritten statement written Mr. Brun-
field beginning immediately or soon after
the events took place. It's dated one,
November, at 2120 hours, which would be
9:20 he wrote out the statement.
Detective Shields came on to testify
that he arrived at the jail between
eight-forty-five and nine o'clock having
heard about the escape on his radio. He
first saw Mr. Brumfield in the break room
right next to the booking desk and that
they talked in that room. Mr. Brumfield
agreed with that. He said he had -- he
testified he talked to Shields for twenty
or thirty minutess before he gave any re-

corded statement. Then after, I suppose,

30

a aa, pope ae eee

eh ee ee ee ee ee

further conversations with Lieutenant
Bryant and Chief Heap was there and Terry
Shields was there and Mr. Jenkins was
there and others -- after all that con-
versation subsided, then the record shows
that Mr. Brumfield went with Mr. Shields
-- Officer Shields to the detective of-
fice where he gave a recorded statement
which was recorded beginning at 11:11 and
it lasted until 11:26 -- Government's Ex-
hibit Thirty-Four.

Brumfield then testified that he
left the detective office, went out of
the building to get in his car -- in his
truck and go home and found it to be
missing. He returned immediately to the
detective office and reported his truck
was missing, exhibiting his keys or his
set of keys to the truck to which he said
and Mr. Shields testified also that he

said it was -- to his knowledge, the only

31

set of keys and he added a somewhat poig-
nant thougght: "My name is ‘'Mud'," be-
cause of his circumstances. And then he
gave his seccond recorded statement which
began according to the typescript of
Government Thirty-Five which began at
11:39 and terminated at 11:54. After-
wards, he called his wife and asked her
to come and get him. He said he didn't
tell her about the escape or anything,
that he used some of the same language
that he used in Exhibit Thirty-Five. It
was something he testified: "I don't
know of a single other thing -- single
thing else that can go wrong." And he --
it is testified or was testified either
by him or by his wife that he said to
her: "What -- if anything else can --
whatever can go wrong has gone wrong" or
words to that effect. He did not want to

alarm his wife at the phone call, he

32

.
:
|
|
|
4
N
:
|

a

said, and did not tell her what had hap-
pened.

She testified that about midnight
she left her house in the white pickup
truck, the same one that Mr. White had
driven from the jail to the house. That
matches the time because if Mr. -- if G-
35 ended at 11:56 or 11:54, rather,
whereupon Mr. Brumfield called his wife
and she testified she left the house at
around midnight. That matches all of the
statements. She testified that she
didn't notice what cars were there in the
driveway when she went outside. She
simply got in the truck and came to the
jail; though Mr. Brumfield had told
Detective Shields that there was only one
set of keys to his knowledge. Mrs. Brum-
field had a set of keys which she said
she used to get to the jail] and it was

the same set of keys that Penny Frazier

33

had kept for a number of weeks and who by
coincidence otherwise had brought those
keys back on the evening before when she
came to dinner on the evening of October
33. I think both women testified that
Mr. Brumfield was not at home that eve-
ning and he did not see those keys
returned. This would explain why Mr.
Brumfield didn't know his wife had a set
of keys and why he was so surprised to
learn that she'd driven up to the jail in
the truck, if he, in fact, thought he had
the only set of keys. But then Detective
Sheilds said that when he told Mr. Brum-
field of the arrival of his wife in the
pickup truck that Mr. Brumfield responded
by putting his head down on the table on
his folded arms. And that when he looked
up a short time later, his eyes were
watery, a reaction prenant with guilty

knowledge or normal reaction of somebody

34

Se Sey Lect ita i dS is SES scl

ot £as ees

Sabai wees

astounded by the turn of events?
Nevertheless, a short time thereafter,
Mr. Brumfield was taken into custody and
was housed in the city jail.

Mr. Billy Brumfield testified about
several phone calls he received from per-
sons identifying themselves as Garvin
Dale White and Randy Costales that began
on November 3. The caller identified
himself as White and said he had Jimmie's
car. In response to Billy Brumfield's
questions, White acknowledged that he was
the person who had just escaped from jail
and explained that he was not the person
who had come to Billy Brumfield's house
with Jimmie, but that person was with
him. And then a person who called him-
self Randy got on the phone. Mr. Brum-
field couldn't say he made voice iden-
tification. Anyway, the request was that

Billy go to Little Rock and pick up the

35

car. It was explained that the Lincoln
keys were in the gas filler cap. After
that conversation, Billy talked it over
with his daddy and they went to the
sheriff to say what they knew. The
sheriff notified the Marshals and on the
next phone call, there was a recording
device for the November 4 phone call
which concerned the automobile. This
conversation is in the transcript which
is Exhibit Twenty-Eight.

Billy testified that he told Randy
that he had not picked up the car yet be-
cause he didn't have any money. Randy
assured him that the money would be at
Western Union the next day. My notes
show that there is Exhibits Twenty-Three,
Twenty -- Thirty-Two and Thirty-Three
which were money orders for five hundred

dollar -- a money order for five hundred

dollars received at the Franklinton West-

36

.
a
}
E
}

a6 le LD;

Ae ee

ern Union Office on the fifth of November
from Flagstaff, Arizona. Mr. Brumfield
-- Billy Brumfield testified that nobody
in Flagstaff, Arizona owed him any money.
And he gave the money order to the Mar-
shals who gave him a receipt. Costales
called back, I think, on November 7 and
Billy told him he still hadn't picked up
the car. He feared he waited too long
and Randy said: "I don't know. ie & |
talk to Arax about it or you talk to Arax
about it or I will." And there was
another call, either again on the sev-
venth or on the eighth of November in-,
quiring about the status of the car. And
he asked Billy: "Since it's the weekend,
can you go get the car? And if you'll go
get it tomorrow?" And then he told Billy
an interestingg thing: "Don't tell
anyone where you got the car. Tell them

you've had it all along." And Billy

37

played along with the game: "You mean
like they came down here last weekend and
I've had it ever since and got it fixed
and bring it back to Bossier?" And the
voice on the telephone, Mr. Costales, did
not know that the Inspector Bramel from
Little Rock had got a call from -- on the
fourth from the Shreveport Marshal's of-
fice about the car and on the fifth had
already located the car at the airport
and shortly thereafter, it was processed
for fingerprints. 7

Well, what does Mr. White say about
all this? Mr. White testified that Mr.
Brumfield, in his words, had nothing to
do with the escape. He stated that when
he saw both of the jailers were dis-
tracted and the elevator was open, he
made a, using his words, a sponaneous
decision to leave. On cross examination,

he testified that he didn't know the

38

Bathe RNB LRT A GRRE PEE

truck was out there in the parking lot
ana that he would have just kept on walk-
ing if it had not been there. He did
state that he had used that pickup to get
Mr. Brumfield's house to pick up some
stuff he needed that would help him get
out of the country. In his briefcase, he

said, there were telephone numbers of

persons who could hide him. And Mr.
Stroud pressed Mr. White. He says: "All
right. Who are those people? Where are

those numbers? What are their names?
Mr. Greer, you will remember, who was
here to protect the Constitutional rights
of Mr. White, intervened on Mr. White's
behalf; but, in any event, certain names
were mentioned at that time, which we'll
get to in a minute. Mr. White says he
went to get those belongings and that
when he went outside to leave, he found

the truck was gone and he went back in

39

and found some keys to the Lincoln and
cranked up the Lincoln and headed toward
Arkansas. And that he stopped eighteen
or twenty miles out of town, I presume in
the vicinity of Dixie Inn and bought a
hamburger and a coke and headed north
through Arkansas and on the way, he
stopped to place a call to his friend,
Rapneal Aguilar, in Mexico, using some of
the money he kept in his sock while he
was in jail. And after he got to Little
Rock, he was picked up by an airplane
with two Mexican pilots whose names he
didn't know.

Mr. Brumfield testified first that
he didn't know White was going to escape
and that all these good things were going
on in his behalf with the DEA. The
statement that he wrote which is
Government's Exhibit Eleven immediately

after the escape are consistent with the

.40

ee ee ee a aE ER cg a

euch?

Pa hal.

sequence of events that I have found to
have existed during the short period from
Mr. Brumfield's arrival at the desk until
Mr. White stepped into the elevator.
However, the other circumstances
surrounding the escape both before and
after and Mr. Brumfield's explanation of
them are not credible nor is Garvin Dale
White's version of his escape believable.
There are too many or ee that came
together to produce anything other than a
planned escape. For example, if you
wonder what I'm looking at, to keep track
of what happened, I had to make a calen-
dar of October and every bit of informa-
tion that came to pass I put down on the
day that it came to pass to try to find
out if Mr. Brumfield was guilty of aiding
and abetting in this escape and every bit
of information, much of it circumstan-

tial, had to fit or he is not guilty.

41

He was asked in Government's Exhibit
Thirty-Five on page four, talking about
Dale White, and I think Brumfield said:
"I think at one time he lived in
Florida." That's on the bottom of page
three and top of page four. "When was

the last time you spoke with his son?"

Answer: "Last night at thee jail." "At
what jail?" "At this jail." “Okay. Was
he here?" "Oh, no. He was not here. He

called on the phone and I talked with him
over the phone because we were trying to
work out the situation I had told you
about earlier." "Okay. When was the

last time before that that you talked

with the son?" "That afternoon."
"Yesterday afternoon." "At my office,
yes, sir." "Okay. Where was he calling
from then?" "TI believe it was Arizona."

"Okay. What kind of work does he do?"

"He indicated to me he was a carpenter

42

mA peal
2 ON HOARD Rie aed Vad RAG LA INR eet Tachi LEG inl ne nes ae labineds tha ye STR RUE SS

sin Sate cal Sa tala lh

piles! alae So ant Ns

ti Biphasic Sig RS hl tS Ss aes Reet ial a tates

wa et

LANA

4
s
-

and that he . . ." et cetera. "And
when's the time before yesterday after-
noon that you talked with him?" "TI can't
remember that." "Would it have been this
week?" Answer: "It would have been this
week. Yes, it would have been sometime
the early part of this week probably."
"Okay. And what was that conversation in
reference to?" Defendant answers: "This
case we're working on now. He has
privied information concerning this
Aguilar." "Right." Brumfield says: "He
knows the house number -- phone number
and then evidently has gotten some people
to go down there and he contact -- and be
contacts for him in his operations."
Well, if you plop that onto a map,
the escape occurred on Saturday and Mr.
Brumfield talked to Dale White about Mr.
Aguilar in the afternoon of the thirty-

first the day before and at night the day

43

before; and on Wednesday or Tuesday of
that week, he -- Mr. Brumfield testified
that he talked to Dale White about
Aguilar's home number. That's a bit of a
coincidence but then if you look in the
testimony about Mr. Aguilar, the tes-
timony of Mr. White, when he was asked:
"Did you know where the office was? Did
you leave the keys in the pickup?" "No,
they were in my briefcase." Oh, and then
he said: "I believe -- I believe so."
"Did you leave the keys in the pickup?"
He said: "I believe so."

And Mr. Stroud is asking him: "You
needed maps to get out of the area and
the phone numbers of key people to help
you out of the country?" To which he
answered, after consulting with Mr.
Greer: "Yes." Mr. Stroud said: "Who
are these people?" He answered: "A

Mexican friend, Rapheal Aguilar." Then

44

;

TO al he MIP SEL A Selle M

he was asked if there was anyone else?
And that -- my notes run out about that
point. But then Mr. Aguilar's name came
up again with Mr. Stroud talking about
the phone numbers: "Were any calls made
from the Brumfields' house at the night
of the escape?" To which Mr. White said
"No." "Who did you call?" He said: "I
called Rapheal out of the country."
"Where were you when you made that --
made the call?" He said he made two
calls. He called for a waffle shop up
where this country road meets the Inter-
state in Arkansas. And he got a Mexican
friend who couldn't speak English and he
paid for the call. "How much was the
call?" "Three or four dollars." "Did he
fly up to get you?" "No, he didn't."
And then later: "What type of plane?"
That wasn't answered but he did testify

that two Mexican pilots came to pick him

45

up.

Now, if you follow the evidence, you
would have read Government's Exhibit
Eighteen which was recovered from the
back of the Lincoln automobile in Little
Rock. It was testified that this was
mostly in Mr. Brumfield's handwriting ex-
cept for a page written we presume by Mr.
White in his handwriting with phone nun-
bers on it. And the note is telling Mr.
Brumfield -- he's an inveterate note-
taker and about as bad as I am about it,
but he takes notes and this note said:
"Ask about: Him being closer. Equip-
ment. Pilot. Anything we can use to
land in this area. Non-tower strips."
Mr. Brumfield explains this note by
saying this was when we were trying to
make a deal with Mr. Hawkins to get a
bust into this area so that the DEA could

get credit for it. To which I can only

46

|

EN EE OS A FRO TeeS

I ORE 9) 258E

sQy® see

he a 7 Wee YADA ee

answer in the -- in great restraint,,
"Horsefeathers!" This is a document in
the hand of the defendant tied to the
fact that he called Dale White three
times -- that he called Dale White to
find out Rapheal Aguilar's home telephone
number in Mexico, all which occurred on
Tuesday before the -- Wednesday before
the escape and two calls on Friday before
the escape and an airplane came to Little
Rock the day of the -- after the escape
and picked up Mr. White and was gone.

There was a newspaper of November 2,
Sunday,, found on the front seat of the
Lincoln when it was picked up. There
were fingerprints in that car of both Mr.
White and Mr. Costales.

The last kind of facts to talk about
have to do with the money that Mr. White
had; about the fact that Mr. Brumfield

sat in the conference room by his own ad-

47

LT, i AS ke gre EE

mittance for ten minutes when the last
time he saw Mr. White he was ten seconds
away from the doorway to the conference
room; about his claimed lack of any
knowledge about who Mr. Costales were or
was or how he fitted into the puzzle. I
Simply find that to be incredible. The
sweatsuit business and the money: When
Mr. White was on the stand, I asked him
about the money that he used to buy the
hamburger and the coke. And he said it
came from his sock and that you were al-

lowed to keep cash money in city jail.

"I just accumulated -- I had -- I just
had accumulated it." And the source of
} the money he was asked? Answer: wa
believe that I came with it. I had

Sixty-two dollars when I arrived there."

Question: "And when you were being asked
about the jumpsuit?" “yes, sir."
Question: "How were you dressed?" "Ina

48

sweatsuit." "Did you normally have that

on?" You said: "Ves." "'ves. It was
chilly up there.' Is that what you
answered?" He said: "That's correct."

You said in answer to Mr. Stroud's ques-
tion, he asked you a question: "Where

did the jogging suit come from?" Then you

answered first: "I brought it with me."
He then said: Question: "You did not
remember that at the Snyder trial." Then
the next thing: "Did you have it before
you were arrested?" Then you said: a
don't recall." "I think you said you had
Nike jogging shoes?" You answered:
"That's correct." Question: "Now clear
it up for me." Answer: ®°Yes, sir.*
Question: "Did you own that jogging suit

in Florida and bring it with you or was
it brought with you at the city jail
after you were incarcerated in the city
jail? It had to be one or the other. It

49

just didn't materialize in the property

room." Answer: "No, sir." Question:
"Or in any other way. How did the jog-
ging suit get in your possession in the
Federal holding cell at the Shreveport
City Jail?" Answer: "The jogging suit,
I believe, was brought to me as a part of
-- I think that I owned it before."
Question: "You think that you owned it
before? Now, Mr. White, you know how
that rings with me." Answer: "Okay."
Question: "It sounds like you are really
trying to answer it but being careful
about your answer if I can be blunt about
it?" Answer: "Let me give you -- no,
Sir." Question: "You either own a jog-
ging suit and you know that you own it or
you don't. It's a simple question. It's
a simple question. Now, sir, --"
Answer: "The jogging suit was brought to

me by Mr. Brumfield in the city jail and

50

put in my property." Question: "After
you arrived in Shreveport from Florida?"
Answer: "That's correct." "All right."
"Sir, the jailer gave it to me after
that." Question: "Did Mr. Brumfield
from time to time furnish you with spend-
ing money or cash money to use or for
whatever purpose you use it for in the
city jail?" Answer: "TIT came with my
own."

Mr. -- it is interesting to note in
passing that Mr. Brumfield said in answer
to a question or in part of the interview
with the Marshal that he gave Mr. White
four or five twenty dollar bills in the
presence of the city jailer. There was
apparently no lost motion from the time
that the escape began until Mr. White ar-
rived in Arkansas. Once he left the
vicinity of the jail, he was able to gain

transportation out of this area; to get

51

him out of the country simply by going to

Mr. Brumfield's house and getting in the
Lincoln Continental and going to Little
Rock. The arrangements for transporta-
tion beyond Little Rock from a non-tower
strip to North Little Rock Municipal Air-
port had been laid on by whom? This
Court finds it was by and with the assis-
tance of Mr. Brumfield.

In order to find Mr. Brumfield
guilty of conspiracy, this Court has got
first in count one: He's charged with
conspiracy. In order to find him guilty
of conspiracy, the Government must have
proved to beyond a reasonable doubt that
Mr. Brumfield and at least one other per-
son entered into an agreement to commit
the escape of Garvin White and that
second, that Mr. Brumfield committed at
least one overt act in furtherance of

that agreement. That those findings are

made necessary not only by the state of

the law but by a Fifth Circuit decision
in the United States versus Wilson. Then
from the Middlebrooks case, it says:
"There is rarely any direct evidence of
an agreement to join a criminal con-
spiracy and thus did the defendant's as-
sent can be inferred from the act which
furthered thee conspiracy's purpose."
Furthermore, "a common purpose or plan
may be inferred from a development and a
collocation of circumstances." That's
from the Maletosta case on banc in the
Fifth Circuit quoting from Glazer versus
The United States. "On the subject of
the type of evidence we are faced with,
the law is that the supporting evidence
may be direct or circumstantial and we do
not discriminate against sufficiently
probative evidence because it is in-

4ivrect.* That's a question from the

ae

United States versus Richards. "Because

no one has a window to a man's mind,
knowledge must often be proved by in-
direct evidence." The evidence before
this Court overwhelmingly supports the
inference that the defendant was an ac-
tive, voluntary participant in the con-
spiracy to free Garvin Dale White from
custody. Those actions on his part are
numerous.

Let's see what had to happen. Any
escape, you've first got to have a man
with a desire, with a drive that wants
out of that jail. Well, that's Garvin
Dale White in spades. Second, you've got
to have some way to hide from or to
divert the jailer's view of what goes on
or you can't get out. Third, you've got
to have civilian clothes when you get
outside so as to camouflage your true

identity. Fourth, you need to have some

54

way to get away from the city jail or the
area of the jail, either on your own feet
in your own jogging shoes or with some
other conveniently located transporta-
tion. You've got to have, fifth, some
money to meet incidental expenditures and
talk to people on the telephone to help
you. And, sixth, you've got to have time
and transportation to get out of the im-
mediate area of the search for you, i.e.,
to get out of the Shreveport-Bossier
area. The facts found by this Court
showed involvement of Jimmie Brumfield
with respect to every element except the
first one. He did not give Garvin Dale
White any drive necessary to cause him to
want to get out of jail. I think that's
built in that man. But the jailer, Dick-
son, was diverted by the call to Mrs.
Brumfield that he, Brumfield, placed.

Snyder was a co-conspirator with White

55

and with Brumfield and part of the plan
was for him to be undressed when Jenkins
came to get then. The distractions I
found were so effective that Jenkins was
still at the door waiting for Snyder and
Dickson was still on the telephone when
Garvin Dale White was long gone from the
police building. He was able to get out
of the building unnoticed because he had
on a civilian jogging suit, furnished to
him by Mr. Brumfield. Mr. Brumfield's
truck, for whatever reason and however it
happened to be mobile, was there at the
disposal of Mr. White. He found the
defendant's house, if he didn't know how
to get there. And a key, the use of
another vehicle and his briefcase and
other matters which were left at the
defendant's house for him to pick up
should he get there.

And he had the money to call on the

56

telephone and talk to the people in
Mexico. Either he brought sixty-two dol-
lars to Shreveport or Mr. Brumfield's
testimony is true that he gave him twenty
dollar bills, four or five of them. Un-
der Middlebrooks and under the Maletesta
decisions, those actions by Mr. Brumfield
lead to the inference that there was a
common plan between at least Mr. Brum-
field and Mr. White to effect Mr. White's
escape and that Mr. Brumfield assented to
it. In addition to the factors that I
discussed, there was some other cir-
cumstances. The visits with Mr. White on
the several occasions that night prior to
the escape and the fact that he met both
with Snyder and with White for an ex-
tended period of time on Thursday night
and an extended period of time on Friday
night; there were the two prisoners talk-

ing to the lawyer in the conference room

57

on the jail, in the jail, you will -- I
will recall from the Snyder trial that
Mr. Snyder said they started to leave on
Friday night when the elevator opened and
there were so many people around the
booking desk but if you credit Mr.
Snyder's testimony they decided not to
go. But Mr. Brumfield met with them
beginning at 8:35 on Friday night and
beginning at 7:40 P.M. on Thursday night
in the conference room.

Another co-conspirator involved in
these charges against Mr. Brumfield is
Mr. Costales. And Mr. Costales was in
Shreveport for the better part or with
Mr. Brumfield for the better part of ten
days. He left Shreveport on Tuesday af-
ternoon the twenty-eighth and the
evidence or fingerprint evidence and
other evidence shows that Mr. Costales

was in Little Rock with Mr. White by the

58

following Sunday night. And that Mr.
Costales was on the telephone to Mr.
Billy Brumfield several times during the
week following the escape dealing with
the return of the automobile.

The evidence shows beyond a
reasonable doubt that an agreement ex-
isted andd that Mr. Brumfield agreed with
st. The evidence shows to me beyond a
reasonable doubt that the overt acts com-
mitted by the defendant were committed by
the defendant in furtherance of the con-
spiracy. The indictment lists overt acts
that applied to this defendant that Brum-
field drove the pickup truck to the jail.
After arriving at the jail, he asked the
jail officials for permission to see
White. The third one was that Mr. White
used Brumfield's truck to leave the jail
vicinity and drove it to jump Brumfield's

residence and that White drove the

59

Brumfield's Lincoln from that residence
to Little Rock. There are -- these are
the overt acts listed -- some of the
overt acts listed in the indictment. The
evidence of these acts is undisputed vir-
tually. The inference that these acts
were in furtherance of the conspiracy are
absolutely inescapable. The Government
has proved the two elements of the charge
of conspiracy and Mr. Brumfield is found
to be guilty of the charge of conspiracy
in count one.

It's somewhat anticlimatic to dis-
cuss count two, but it's required that I
deal with both counts of this indictment.
In count two, Mr. Brumfield is charged
with aiding and assisting the escape of
Garvin Dale White. There are two ele-
ments. First, that Mr. White was a
Federal prisoner and that he escaped from

custody and second, that Mr. Brumfield

60

aided and assisted in that escape. The
fact of the escape from custody is not in
doubt. In light of the findings of facts
and conclusions reached already by this
Court, there is no doubt that Mr. Brum-
field aided and assisted in that escape.
Without the moves made by Mr. Brumfield,
I don't believe Mr. White could have made
good his escape. There were multiple
steps involved in the plan and many of
those steps involved were those taken by
the defendant. The evidence shows beyond
a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brumfield is
guilty of the offense charged in count
two.

Mr. Brumfield, in his own testimony,
is responsible for some of the
credibility questions particularly those

involving the relationship of Randy Cos-

tales. He was also asked -- he was
asked such questions as: "Who introduced
61

you to Randy Costales?" To which Mr.

Brumfield answered: "I don't recall."
He could have said: Well, it might have
been Dale White because I was with him or
it might have been Garvin Dale because I
was with him and we were in Florida and
that's where all this started. He could
have said that, but he simply said: od '
don't recall." He gave no explanation
for how he met Randy Costales and brought
him home and established him in his of-
fice residence to sleep and to stay
together with him for ten days. It just
doesn't ring true. The sweatsuit, he was
asked: "Where did it come from?" "T

don't have any idea where it came from",

he said. Yet the man who received the
sweatsuit clearly said: "Mr. Brumfield
brought it to me." And it's hard to

separate the white from the chaff in this

case because so many stories were told by

62

so many people that it took me until this

afternoon to try to come to grips with it
and I had to draw a picture of the month
in question before it came clear. He was
asked: "Did Mr. -- to Mr. White if I
needed the help to get out?" And Mr.
Brumfield answered: "He didn't need my
help." And he said -- he was asked:
"Garvin Dale White was never at your
home?" "No. I wouldn't allow him
there." Well, if he wouldn't allow Randy
Costales there--if he wouldn't allow Gar-
vin Dale White there, but he allowed
Garvin Dale White's either good friend or
family relation to stay right there in
his family group in Kirk Lane and then to
visit the other family members in
Franklinton and to ride up and down the
length and breadth of Louisiana together.
How does that ring true? And the short

answer: It doesn't. It is only in con-

63

clusion that I say that the credibility

choices that the Court was required to
make, many of them were in favor of the
defendant but many of them were not. And
the decision of the Court is he is found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the
offenses charged both in count one and
count two.

And this Court is adjourned until
nine-thirty tomorrow morning.

The defendant is notified of his
right to appeal this Court's decision and
that knowledge will be made fully aware
to you at the time of sentencing which
will occur on Friday, July 16.

All rise.

MR. MARSHAL: All rise.

THE COURT: The pre-sentence of the
Court will begin as soon as Mr. Simmons
gets after it. But sentencing, Mr. Sinm-

mons, Will be on the sixteenth of July.

64

(WHEREUPON, the Court was ad-

journed. )

(END OF TRANSCRIPT)

65

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, :
-versus- >: CRIMINAL
JIMMIE A. BRUMFIELD, II : NUMBER
Defendant. : 82-50004-01

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, Bill Hogan, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing transcript,
consisting of pages 1 through 44, is a
full, true, correct and accurate
transcript of the proceedings, as
requested to be transcribed, had in the
ruling of the above cause on June 14,
1982, before the Honorable Tom Stagg,
Judge of said Court, as reported and
transcribed by me as wfficial Court
Reporter for the above Court.

Bill Hogan, Official Court Reporter

66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Plaintiff,

-versus- : CRIMINAL
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD,II: NUMBER
Defendant : 82-50004
TRIAL COURT: HONORABLE TOM STAGG, JUDGE
TRANSCRIPT: REPORTER'S OFFICIAL TRANS-
CRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN
ABOVE CAUSE
LOCATION: UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTHOUSE, SHREVEPORT, LA
TRIAL DATE: JULY 16, 1982

TRANSCRIPT FILED:

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: ARAX T. BRUMFIELD,
ATTORNEY
BILL HOGAN, RPR
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court

67

P. O. Box 441

Shreveport, Louisiana 71162

(318) 226-5293

68

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
Mr. A. Stroud, III, Attorney
P. O. Drawer 1126
Shreveport, Louisiana 71163
Mr. Carl Stewart, Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Federal Building, 500 Fannin
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Mr. J. Stacey Freeman, Attorney
1648 Benton Road
Bossier City, Louisiana 71111
BE IT REMEMBERED that in the United
States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Shreveport Divi-
sion, in the United States Courthouse, in
the City of Shreveport, Parish of Caddo,
State of Louisiana, on the 16th day of
July, 1982, the above entitled cause came

on for sentencing before the Honorable

69

Tom Stagg, Judge of said Court, and the

proceedings on the sentencing are in the

words and figures following, to-wit:

70

MR. STEWART: Good morning, Judge.

THE COURT: Morning.

MR. STEWART: Did you wish to take
up sentencing prior to some introduction
or admissions?

THE COURT: We're going to do the --

MR. STEWART: Sentencing?

THE COURT: -- sentencing.

MR STEWART: Your Honor, before the
Court is United States versus Jimmie A.
Brumfield. The matter is before the
Court this morning for sentencing. Mr.
Brumfield is present in Court with
retained counsel, Mr. J. Stacey Freeman.
The Government is ready to proceed.

THE COURT: Mr. Freeman, I need to
ask as a matter of form that you and Mr.
Brumfield both have read the pre-sentence
report?

MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

71

As the pre-sentence report has
been studied in preparation for thee
scheduled sentencing event, I need to ask
if there are any factual area -- errors
other than those which display the
Government's theory of the case. Are
there any factual errors in this pre-
sentence report that need to be called to
my attention?

MR. FREEMAN: No, sir. Not that I
know of, other than the, you know, of
course, the Government's --

THE COURT: And, Mr. Brumfield, did
you perceive in this report any erroneous
material that the Court should know about
before the sentencing procedure
proceedings?

MR. BRUMFIELD: It seems to be ac-
curate as regards my personal history and
the rest of the information, I, you know,

the remarks that you made towards the

72

Government's version, of course, we'll
accept.

THE COURT: I understood -- I under-
stood the -- that I needed to say that
because of from your statement, you don't
believe that what's in the Government's
case or what's in the Court's findings
are correct. And I understand that.

MR. BRUMFIELD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Now, I have and I ac-
knowledge the receipt of a number of let-
ters written on behalf of Mr. Brumfield
from various friends and neighbors and
clients. And in addition to these writ-
ten statements on behalf of Mr. Brum-
field, Mr. Freeman, do you have any other
statement that you --

MR. FREEMAN: No, sir.

THE COURT: -- would like to make on
behalf of Mr. Brumfield?

MR. FREEMAN: No, sir.

73

THE COURT: And, Mr. Brumfield, do

you have anything in the way of elocution
that you would care to say on your own
behalf?

MR. BRUMFIELD: Your Honor, I think
the things that I would say, you've prob-
ably heard many, many times. I believe
you understand my situation, you know. I
have really nothing new that I could tell
you. I just hope you understand; well,
tnat's my position.

THE COURT: Well, let me preface the
formal sentencing act by stating that you
said you understand my situation. I will
trust that you understand mine.

MR. BRUMFIELD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The trial that was held
and the findings that came from that file
-- from that trial are fresh in my mind.
I am as convinced today as I was on that

day that you were involved in the escape

74

a

of Garvin Dale White. It may have been
misguided to a greater extent that I
believe it was. I know it was misguided
to a certain extent. And for that act on
your part which allowed your client to
escape from the city jail, I am required
to sentence you. This is only the sec-
cond time that I can recall that a lawyer
stood where you stand. The other lawyer
had more grievous charges against him
than you do but it's especially painful
for a man who grew up in admiration of
lawyers and for his life's work followed
the footsteps of lawyers. And it's espe-
cially painful, but I think it needs to
be done. And it's ordered that you be
committed to the custody of the Attorney
General for a term of two years. And
that on the second count, the imposition
of sentence on count two is suspended and

you shall be placed on five years super-

75

vised probation to begin at the end of

your confinement sentence.

And you are ordered, if you wish to
avail yourself of that, voluntarily to
surrender yourself at the designated in-
stitution at nine o'clock on July 26. I
will recommend to the Bureau of Prisons
and to the probation people that they
strive for something nearby, the Federal
prison camp at Texarkana. It is the
closest institution and place of confine-
ment that I think would allow you access
to your wife and to your baby on a more
regular basis than would a institution
more further removed from Shreveport.
And if that can be done, Mr. Maples; if
not, I wish you would let me know so that
I could make some stronger repre-
sentations and a recommendation.

The appeal process now begins. I

have a packet of information, an item

76

from Gilbert Ganucheau, the clerk of the

Fifth Circuit with instructions for using
the notice of appeal form; the voucher
payment forms in case Mr. Freeman isn't
by your side, the Court will appoint
counsel for the perfection of an appeal
if you choose that route.

And, Mr. Terry, if you'll please
hand these to mr. Freeman.

Mr. Freeman, is there anything else
that you need to have covered at this
time?

MR. FREEMAN: No, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Stewart, does the
Government have anything else at this
time?

MR. STEWART: Nothing, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We will briefly recess

MR. BRUMFIELD: Your Honor, --

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

*

MR. BRUMFIELD: There's one small

thing that I needed if I could ask for it
and that is a certified copy of the con-
viction andd the sentencing.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. BRUMFIELD: There's a piece of
personal business that I must attend to
regarding that.

THE COURT: A certified copy of the
-- of what was said here this morning or

MR. BRUMFIELD: No, sir. No, sir.
Just the --

THE COURT: -- or what the ruling
from the Bench was?

MR. BRUMFIELD: Just the conviction,
sir, and just the sentencing.

THE COURT: Mr. Brumfield, can I --
you said it's for a personal matter --

MR. BRUMFIELD: Yes, sir. I would

rather explain it to you between us.

78

(Conference)

THE COURT: All right. We'll take
care of that. Bob Terry will -- I'll get
Bob Terry to attend to it.

That's all. This Court is in
recess for ten minutes.

MR. MARSHAL: All rise.

(Recess)

(END OF TRANSCRIPT)

79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
Plaintiff, :

-versus- CRIMINAL

JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD,II: NUMBER
Defendant : 82-500
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, Bill Hogan, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing transcript,
consisting of pages 1 through 8 is a
full, true, correct and accurate
transcript of the proceedings, as
requested to be transcribed, had in the
sentencing of the above cause on July 16,
1982, before the Honorable Tom Stagg,
Judge of said Court, as reported and
transcribed by my as Official Court
Reporter for the above Court.

Bill Hogan, Official Court Reporter

80

ea >

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL
VERSUS NUMBER
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD, II 82-50004-02
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

The Petition of Jimmie Arnold Brum-
field, II, a resident andd domiciliary of
Bossier Parish, Louisiana, who respect-
fully represents:

Le

Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II was
charged with and found guilty after a
bench trial of Conspiracy to Assist in
the Escape under 18 U.S.C. 371 and Aiding
and Assisting in the Escape under 18
U.S.C. 752(1) of Garvin Dale White in the
Indictment entitled United States of
America vs. Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II,

Criminal No. 82-500004-01/02. The date

81

of conviction was June 14, 1982.

26

Petitioner was sentenced to two (2)

years at the Federal Correctional In-
stitute in Texarkana, Texas and five
years active probation by the Honorable
Judge Tom Stagg, on the 16th of July
1982.

3

Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II was

originally incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institute in Texarkana,
Texas. He “as placed on parole July 26,
1983, successfully completed his parole
July 26, 1984 and is presently serving a
5 year probated sentence with the United
States Department of Probation and
Parole, Western District of Louisiana,
Shreveport Division.

4.

By being on parole, Petitioner can-

82

not leave the Western District of
Louisiana without permission from his
parole officer. He must file a report
with probation and parole once a month,
and the Department of Probation and
Parole has the authority to supervise his
life, both personal and business. Al-
though, Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II is not
physically incarcerated behind bars, he
is in fact incarcerated within the West-
ern District of Louisiana. Besides the
actual sentence of Probation,
Petitioner's rights have been impaired
ass follows:

a. As a convicted felon, he is un-
able to possess firearms.

b. Because of his conviction, he
was disbarred from the Practice of Law by
the Louisiana Bar Association, State of
Louisiana, and is unable to make a living

at a Profession that took him seven (7)

83

years to obtain.

c. He is unable to obtain employ-
ment in any area in which he was trained
such as practicing law, the Insurance
Business, the Banking and Financial - Busi-
ness or any that he can use his mind.
Because of the Stigma of his conviction,
and the pressure, both above and below
board placed on him, most companies are
afraid to have anything to do with Jimmie
Arnold Brumfield II.

d. He is unable to travel freely.
Each time he leaves the Western District
of Louisiana, he must obtain permission
from his Probation Officer, and when he
returns, he must remember to check in.

5.

Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II appealed

the decision, however, after he arrived

at the Federal Correctional Institute, it

was made clear to him that if he

84

ee

STE Se a ne ae

proceeded with the appeal, his chances of
parole would be greatly reduced and that
life at the prison would be made much
more difficult. Pursuant to those warn-
ings, Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II dis-
missed his appeal.
6.
Petitioner believes that he is being

held unlawfully for the following

reasons:
a. He was denied his right to a
jury trial. Pressure was placed on him

and his wife for him to waive his right
to trial by jury. Petitioner was asked
and pressured to sign his Jury trial
waiver well in advance of trial, wherein,
Garvin Dale White and Donald davder
signed their Jury Trial Waivers the morn-
ings of their trials.

b. Petitioner was not afforded his

right to be tried by an impartial trier

85

of facts. The Honorable Judge Tom Stagg
was convinced that Jimmie Arnold Brun-
field II was guilty before the first wit-
ness was ever sworn. Petitioner has
reason to believe the following:

de It was impossible for Judge Tom
Stagg to be completely unbiased because
of the extreme publicity that the case
had, both with the news media, and among
the Shreveport and Bossier Bar Associa-
tion.

a. Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II's
conviction was very important to both
Brian Joffrion and A. M. Stroud III.
Judge Tcx Stagg is and was personal
friends with both Brian Joffrion, the
United States Marshal, and A. M. Stroud
III. Mr. Joffrion sat in the courtroom
the entire time the case was being tried
as a case worker. Then toward the end

of the trial, he was allowed to testify

86

as a rebuttal witness against Jimmie Ar-
nold Brumfield II.

3. Judge Tom Stagg had read the
transcript of the State court proceeding
entitled State of Louisiana versus Jimmie
Arnold Brumfield and Arax T. Brumfield.
The preliminary examination transcript
contained hearsay statements and other
inadmissible statements.

4. Judge Tom Stagg was the trier of
fact in the proceedings entitled United
States of America versus Garvin Dale
White, wherein Garvin Dale White was con-
victed of Simple Escape.

5. Judge Tom Stagg was the trier of
fact in the proceedings entitled United
States of America versus Donald Snyder
wherein, Donald Snyder was charged in
connection with the Garvin Dale White es-
cape. Donald Snyder was charged with

both Conspiracy to Assist in the Escape

87

under 18 U.S.C 371 and Aiding in the Es-

cape under 18 U.S.C. 752(1) of a Federal
Prisoner, namely Garvin Dale White.

Judge Tom Stagg stated in his ruling that
he believed prosecution's witness, Judy
Philpot who testified that when she

visited Donald Snyder in Texarkana,

field helped in the escape of Garvin Dale
White. A transcript of the Donald Snyder
trial was ordered and paid for nearly one
year ago, but has not been delivered.
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II was given no
opportunity to cross examine Judy Phil-
pot, denying him his right to Due Process
and the right to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him. Mrs.
Philpot was available for the Donald
Snyder trial the preceding Tuesday, and
would have been available for the Jimmie

Arnold Brumfield trial. It might be

88

noted that Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II was
in no way warned about the Philpot tes-
timony prior to the Snyder trial, and by
that time, had no way to subpoena her to
his trial. Even if Jimmie Brumfield had
subpoenaed her, he would have had to call
her as his witness, still denying him the
right of cross examination. Judge il-
legally took judicial notice of the
Snyder trial in the Brumfield trial.

6. In Judge Tom Stagg's oral
reasons for finding Jimmie Arnold Brum-
field II guilty, he referred to the
Donald Snyder trial stating:

"It is also true that Mr. Donald E.
Snyder, who was tried in this countroom
Monday and Tuesday of last week....was
the cell mate of Mr. White at the time of
the escape and he was convicted by this
court of the charges that he was involved

in the conspiracy and abetting and as-

89

sisting in the escape of Mr. White, and

that conviction was based on evidence
that Mr. Snyder's delaying tactics in or-
der to distract the jailer and give Mr.
White the opportunity to get to the jail
elevator andd out of the building."

page 18 of Judge Stagg's opinion:

"TI found as a fact in his trial that

he was in his undershorts because it was
part of the scheme to delay the jailer at
the jail door and he was convicted on
those facts, and those facts have not
changed."
Judge Tom Stagg reasoned that Donald
Snyder and Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II
were co-conspirators, thus establishing a
conspiracy. By establishing the con-
spiracy, he allowed hearsay testimony,
which would have not otherwise been ad-
missible, thus compounding the error.

Vs Judge Tom Stagg cross examined

90

Garvin Dale White and successfully con-
fused him concerning how he obtained the
jogging suit and other items, thus put-
ting himself in the position of advocate
for the United States of America and not
an impartial judge or trier of fact.
Note page 34 of Judge Stagg's opinion
wherein he noted that Jimmie Arnold Brum-
field II furnished Garvin Dale White with
a jogging suit. Also, all prisons sell
jogging suits. Judge Tom Stagg never al-
lowed the checking of Garvin Dale White's
prison property sheet. Also note page
105 of the transcript of the preliminary
examination in the proceedings entitled
State of Louisiana vs. Jimmie Arnold
Brumfield II.

"0. How long had he been in the
jogging suit?

A. As well as I can recall, ever

since he came there.

91

Q. He never did put on the required
prison uniforn.
A. That's right.

Garvin Dale White wore the jogging
suit at the Shreveport City Jail before
Garvin Dale White saw Jimmie Arnold Brun-
field II for the first time in the
Shreveport City Jail.

Also, Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II is
not responsible for what the prisoners
wear. All other prisoners but Garvin
Dale White were forced to wear regular
uniforms. Garvin Dale White was treated
like a celebrity by the jailers and al-
lowed to wear whatever he wanted. The
responsibility for proper clothing of the
prisoners rests entirely on the jailers,
not the prisoner's attorney.

dad. Tom Snow and Jim Hawkins vio-
lated the rule of Sequestration. Before

testifying, Tom Snow and Jim Hawkins were

92

in a hall, Jim Hawkins standing on one
side and Tom Snow standing by a door on
the other side of the hall. Tom Snow had
a copy of the State court proceedings
reviewing and discussing it with Jim Haw-
kins. The Rule of Sequestration was also
violated by Brian Joffrion. He was al-
lowed to sit through the entire trial as
a “case worker," listening to all tes-
timony. After nearly everyone testified,
Mr. Joffrion was called as a rebuttal
witness. Judge Stagg ruled in U.S. vs.
Garvin Dale White that the case worker
had to testify first, but testify no more
after other witnesses testified.

e. A defendant is to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Judge Stagg was con-
vinced that Jimmie Brumfield was guilty
before he ever commenced the trial.

Careful evaluation of his decision will

93

prove that he did not believe a word
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield, Arax T. Brum-
field or any of Defendant's witnesses
said, but believed all prosecution wit-
nesses, even though Tom Snow was caught
in several inconsistencies. He held that
Jim Brumfield did not represent Donald
Snyder, even though the evidence is over-
whelming that he did. Attached hereto is
a fee contract wherein $2,600.00 was as-
Signed to Jim Brumfield to cover his fee.
A. M. Stroud was aware of Jimmie Arnold
Brumfield's representation of Donald
Snyder because Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II
discussed Donald Snyder case with hin.
A. M. Stroud III allowed Judge Tom Stagg
to believe that Jimmie Brumfield did not
represent Donald Snyder and that Jimmie
Brumfield had no reason to visit Donald
Snyder other than to conspire in the es-

cape of Garvin Dale White, when Mr.

94

Stroud knew that this was not so.

f. A prosecutor has a duty, both
ethically and legally to inform the court
and the defendant of any favorable infor-
mation concerning the defendant's case.
Shortly after the trial of Jimmie Arnold
Brumfield II, an article was published in
the National Bar Journal. Mr. Howard
Skinner, the attorney appointed to repre-
sent Mr. White immediately after his cap-
ture, read the article. The article
lined out the testimony of Garvin Dale
White, wherein he described his escape
and the fact that Jimmie Arnold Brumfield
II did not aid in the escape. The Tes-
timony of Garvin Dale White was the same
as the story told to Mr. Skinner.
Believing that this was relevant in
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II's defense, he
called Carl Stewart, then the Assistant

U. S. Attorney prosecuting the case.

95

Carl Stewart never contacted the defen-
dant or the court with this information.
A copy of the National Bar Journal report
and the letter from Mr. -Skinner is at-
tached hereto and made a part hereof.

g. Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II was
originally charged in the State Court for
Aiding in the Escape of Garvin Dale
White. He was required to post a
$10,000.00 bond. The state court
proceedings dragged on for a year, caus-
ing great financial hardship. He in-
curred attorneys fees and his law prac-
tice dwindled to practically nothing.
This drove Mr. Brumfield into poverty.
Then, after defendant and his family were
financially and emotionally drained,
charges were dropped in State court and
reinstated in Federal Court. No formal
procedures of transfer were utilized. At

that time, Defendant was again arrested,

96

and, unlike most defendant's under
Similar circumstances, was required to
post either a cash or surety bond of
$10,000.00 requiring him again to pay a
bondsman $1,000.00 in order to be
released from jail. $2,000.00 for a
bondsman may not seem like much money to
most people,, but the Brumfield family,
it was all the money in the world. At
that time, the Federal Proceedings were
rushed through, requiring defendant to
spend more money on attorneys fees, and
at the same time, completing the destruc-
tion of his law practice. The assistant
U. S. Attorney, A. M. Stroud III, U. S.
Marshal Tom Snow and U. S. Marshal Brian
Joffrion took an active part in the State
Court proceedings, being in constant con-
tact with both Robert Gillispi and Paul
Carmouche. (Note that A. M. Stroud III

is first Assistant District Attorney for

97

Caddo Parish. By taking an active part
in the State court proceedings, rather
than immediately prosecuting the case in
Federal Court, Assistant U. S. Attorney
A. M. Stroud derived several advantages.

i. He did not have to worry about
complying with the requirements of a
speedy trial, since there was no Federal
indictment handed down, so he could take
his time to build his case.

2. He was made privy to information
derived through a quite lengthy prelimi-
nary examination at the state court
level.

x He managed to completely drain
the defendant and his wife both emo-
tionally and financially so that defen-
dant could not adequately defend his case
when it came to Federal Court. As a
result, Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II had to

defend his case as a pauper. Defendant

98

was required to seek permission from
Judge Stagg for all witnesses subpoenaed.
In order to subpoena witnesses, Defendant
had to tell Judge Stagg in advance what
the witnesses would testify to and "how
these witnesses would prove his in-
nocence." Judge Stagg limited the number
of witnesses defendant was able to sub-
poena.

h. The burden of proof for cir-
cumstantial cases.is different in Federal
Court than it is in State Court. In
Federal Court, the prosecution must only
prove that Defendant is guilty beyond any
reasonable doubt. Under Louisiana law,
the prosecution must eliminate any
reasonable hypothesis. As can well be
seen, the prosecution has a lesser burden
of proof in Federal Court than it does in
State Court. Defendant believes that not

only did the prosecutor fail to prove him

99

Ee

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but,
that he proved he was innocent beyond a
reasonable doubt. He gave direct
evidence that he did not aid in the es-
cape of Garvin Dale White. The prosecu-
tion most certainly did not eliminate any
reasonable hypothesis of innocence. By
transferring the case from State Court to
Federal Court, Defendant was given a much
more burdensome task to defend.

$. There was no direct proof that
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II conspired or
aided in the escape of Garvin Dale White,
however, there was direct proof that he
did not. The only person besides Jimmie
Arnold Brumfield II who would know what
really happened was Garvin Dale White,
and Garvin Dale White testified that
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II did not con-
spire in or aid in his escape.

ir There is a legal presumption

100

that when a party fails to call a witness
on his behalf, that witness would not
testify on his behalf if he were called.
The United States called Judy Philpot as
a witness at the Donald Snyder trial, and
they called the Jail elevator operator at
the Garvin Dale White trial. These wit-
nesses would both have been available for
the Jimmie Arnold Brumfield trial, but
were not called. It must be presumed
that they would not have helped the
prosecution's case. The prosecution
succeeded in bringing Judy Philpot before
Judge Stagg in the Donald Snyder trial,
and did not have to subject her to cross
examination in the Jimmie Arnold Brum-
field trial.

k. All statements made by Jimmie
Arnold Brumfield II while incarcerated in
the Caddo Parish Jail should be

suppressed. Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II

101

did not voluntarily give these statements

in the Caddo Parish Jail to Brian Jof-
frion, Tom Snow, Jim Hawkins and other
law enforcement officers. He was told by
his attorney, Frank Harlow, that if he
did not make the statement he would not
be released from jail. Judge James E.
Clark had already told Jimmie Arnold
Brumfield's wife that if his attorney
would contact him, he would reduce the
bond. The statements made by Jimmie
Brumfield at the jail were not recorded.
Brian Joffrion took hand written notes
and latter typed the notes. After Brian
Joffrion listened to Jimmie Arnold
Brumfield's testimony he took the stand
and used his recollection of that meeting
to discredit Mr. Brumfield. Judge Stagg
specifically referred to Brian Joffrion's
testimony in discrediting Mr. Brumfield.

Jimmie Arnold Brumfield's account of what

102

was said at the meeting is totally dif-
ferent that Mr. Joffrion's account of the
statements. Petitioner believes that Mr.
Joffrion listened to the trial, and tes-
tified in such a manner to suit his pur-
poses.

1. <A foot note, that Jimmie Arnold
Brumfield II was an experienced trial at-
torney of over five years experience,
was, in 1980 little more than fiction.
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II graduated from
L. S. U. Law School in May of 1977 and
began practicing law in October of 1977.
At the time of Garvin Dale White's es-
cape, he had only practiced law for three
years.

m. An adequate chain of evidence
was not established between the notes in-
troduced at trial as notes found in a
brief case in the Lincoln Towncar when

the Lincoln was recovered. Mover

103

believes that the notes were part of the
Garvin Dale White file which was ordered
returned to Judge Tom Stagg and motions
were denied to ascertain what was in the
file. Mover is not convinced that the
notes were in fact found in the Lincoln
used in Garvin Dale White's trip to the
Airport.

n. All evidence found in the office
of Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II and home of
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II (2920 and 2921
Kirk Lane) should have been suppressed.
The U. S. Marshals, D.E.A. Agents,
Shreveport Police and other law enforce-
ment officers searched every file and
every inch of the house and office, thus
conducting an unauthorized and general
search. See record for copies of the
Search warrant. (Note that the search

warrant was signed by U. S. Magistrate

James Barton shortly after the escape).

104

The Federal government was involved in
this case from the beginning.
7

Defendant filed an appeal with the
5th Circuit Court of Appeal, but volun-
tarily dismissed the appeal because of
the following reasons:

a. Lack of financial ability to
pursue the appeal. Arax T. Brumfield,
petitioner's wife, is presently the sole
support of the family and is engaged in
the practice of law in private practice.
Any adverse publicity would hamper her
ability to make a living.

b. While petitioner was in prison,,
he was afraid that pursuing the appeal
would hamper his chance of making parole.
In fact, Petitioner had gone to his hear-
ing, and because of a letter written by
Carl Stewart demanding that he serve his

sentence to completion, one board member

105

recommended that he be placed on parole
after serving one year of his sentence.
The other board member recommended that
he serve his entire sentence until
completion. -The parole case was sub-
mitted to the entire board for decision.
At that time, Petitioner decided that it
would be in his best interest to drop the
appeal. At the time, it was more impor-
tant to be released from prison and be
with his two year old daughter, than it
was to prove his innocence.

C. Petitioner was placed on parole
after his stay at the Federal Correc-
tional Institute in Texarkana,, he was on
parole for one yearand his is presently
on probation for five years. He and his
family were and still are afraid that any
appeal would result in attempts to revoke
his probation and additional harassment

by the U. S. Justice Department. There

106

is an old saying "If the Feds want you,
they'll get you"

d. After the two year ordeal with
the State and Federal charges, and after
a year of incarceration, my wife was not
mentally or emotionally able to withstand
further harassment or pressure.
Petitioner was afraid any further
proceedings would destroy both her mental
and physical health.

8.

Representation for these
proceedings:

a. Arraignment - Arax T. Brumfield,
2921 Kirk Lane, Bossier City, La.

b. Trial - J. Stacey Freeman, 1648
Benton Road, Bossier City, La.

c. Sentencing - J. Stacey Freeman,
1648 Benton Road, Bossier City, La.

dad. Michael Fawer, 700 Camp Street,

New Orleans, La.

107

JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD II, being
first duly sworn under oath, presents
that he has subscribed to the foregoing
petition and does state that the informa-
tion herein is true and correct to the
best of his knowledge and belief.

s/Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD II

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED to before me

this the 17th day of April 1986.
s/Arax T. Brumfield
NOTARY PUBLIC
s/Arax T. Brumfield
ARAX T. BRUMFIELD
Attorney for Petitioner
2921 Kirk Lane
Bossier City, Louisiana 71112

(318) 746-7045

108

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL
VERSUS NUMBER
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD II 82-50004-
01/02
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE

In accordance with the standing or-
der of Honorable Tom Stagq, Chief Judge,
filed with the Clerk of this Court on
March 11, 1981, this federal habeas cor-
pus action was referred to the under-—-
Signed Magistrate for review, report and
recommendation.

On April 17, 1986, petitioner Jimmie
Arnold Brumfield II, pro se, submitted to
the Clerk of this Court his petition for
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A.
2255. In making his cotietewes attack

upon his conviction and sentence,

109

petitioner Brumfield alleges that he was
charged and found guilty after a bench
trial of conspiracy to assist in the es-
cape under 18 U.S.C. S.S. 371 and aiding
and assisting in the escape under 18
U.S.C. S.S. 752(1) of Garvin Dale White
in the indictment entitled "United States
of America vs. Jimmie Arnold Brumfield
II", Criminal No. 82-50004-01/02.

He further alleges that his convic-
tion was June 14, 1982, and on July 16,
1982 he was sentenced to two (2) years at
the Federal Correctional Institute in
Texarkana, Texas and five (5) years ac-
tive probation by Honorable Judge Tom
Stagg. He further alleges that after
being incarcerated in the Federal Deten-
tion Center, he was placed on parole July
26, 1982 and completed his parole July
26, 1984 and presently is serving a five

(5) year probated sentence with the

110

United States Department of Probation and
Parole, Western District of Louisiana,
Shreveport Division.

The main thrust of petitioner's col-
lateral attack on his conviction and sen-
tence is that imposes a severe hardship
upon him (formerly a practicing attorney)
and his wife, who is a lawyer. He con-
tends that inasmuch as he is on proba-
tion, there are many things which he can-
not do because of his conviction and sen-
tence.

Plaintiff Brumfield, as grounds for
his attack on his conviction and sen-
tence, makes numerous contentions of
pretrial and trial errors, and the reason
why he did not complete his appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit after conviction. He fur-
ther claims bias and prejudice on the

part of Judge Stagg during the course of

111

his trial and admission of evidence and
failure of the prosecution to call cer-
tain witnesses.

Pursuant to an order of this court
on April 24, 1986,, and in accordance of
Rule 4 of 28 U.S.C. S.S. 2255, the Clerk
was directed to serve the United States
Attorney for the Western District of
Louisiana with a copy of petitioner's mo-
tion attacking his conviction and sen-
tence. In accordance with Rule 5 of 28
U.S.C. S.S. 2255,, respondent, the United
States, through an Assistant United
States Attorney, on May 23, 1986 filed an
answer denying the allegations of plain-
tiff, supported by a 25 page brief in
response to plaintiff's 14 page petition
and additional attachments.

One of the special defenses of
respondent is that by perfecting his ap-

peal with able and efficient counsel rep-

112

CG LRET LR OIE ST

Ny

resenting him, and then abandoning that
appeal, petitioner is prevented from
making a collateral attack on his convic-
tion and sentence. It further is argued
that all of this could have been
presented on appeal, but due to strategy
of petitioner and his attorney, the pro-
cedure was not followed through and was
abandoned. Cited by respondent are
several cases, including United States v.
Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1985).
This is further buttressed by United
States v. Timmereck, 99 S.Ct. 2085 (1979)
in which the court held that "Respondent
could have raised his claim on direct ap-
peal but did not, and there is no basis
here for allowing collateral attack to do |
service for an appeal." Thus, the
Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit.
Even though Timmereck petitioner entered

a guilty plea, the same rule is ap-

113

plicable after conviction and sentence
upon failure, without cause, in appeal of
his case by presenting the same conten-
tions which he now presents to this
Court.

Petitioner Brumfield also contends
that some of the pretrial statements and
confessions he made should not have been
admitted at trial. Further, he claims he
was denied a speedy trial. This is
Similar to the recent case of United
States of America v. McClure, 786 F.2d
1286 (5th Cir. 1986).

Petitioner also alleged in his
numerous contentions that there were wit-
nesses which the prosecution could have
called but did not which was prejudicial
to him. The record shows that petitioner
had the same opportunity to call these
witnesses in his behalf. No objection

was made of this contention during his

114

trial, and further it is refuted in

United States v. Inadi, 8.¢ct.

’

54 U.S.L.W. 4258, (March 10, 1986). The
Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit
and held that an unindicted co-
conspirator's statement may be introduced
at trial and government was not required
to produce witnesses, holding that Rule
801(dad)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence was applicable.

The answer anc brief of respondent
goes into great and minute detail as to
the uncontested facts in this case, and
refutes each contention presented by
petitioner by citing numerous cases which
are applicable. The answer and brief of
respondent, United States of America, ac-
cordingly is adopted in toto by the un-
dersigned Magistrate and made a part of
this report and recommendation as Ex-

hibits 1 and 2.

115

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
JIMMIE ARNOLD BRUMFIELD II )
Petitioner )
vs. ) CRIMINAL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) NUMBER
Respondent ) 82-50004-02
MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE
AND ANSWER OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY
A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. 2255 rILED BY JIMMIE ARNOLD
BRUMFIELD II
May It Please The Court:
ARGUMENT
I. The Motion For Habeas Corpus
Relief Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 2255 Should
Be Denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

District Court Proceedings

116

ee i

An indictment was returned by the

Grand Jury in the Western District of
Louisiana February 19, 1982, charging in
Count I on or about November 1, 1980,
that Randy Costales, a/k/a Randy Conn,
Jimmie A. Brumfield, II and others did
conspire to effect the escape and attempt
to escape from the Shreveport City Jail,
of Garvin Dale White, who was a federal
prisoner transferred to the jail pursuant
to a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testifican-
dum, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751(a)
and 18 U.S.C. 371. Count II charged Cos-
tales and Brumfield with wilfully aiding
and assisting the escape of White from
the Shreveport City Jail in violation of
18 U.S.C. 752(a). (Vol. 1,, pgs. 1-3)
After waiving trial by jury,
Petitioner was tried before Honorable Tom
Stagg, United States District Judge,

Western District of Louisiana, and con-

117

a

victed on each count.

On July 16, 1982, petitioner was
sentenced to custody for two years on
Count I. Imposition of sentence was
suspended on Count II, and Petitioner was
placed on five years supervised probation
upon the completion of the confinement
sentence imposed on Count I. (Rec. pg.
351). Petitioner filed a Notice of Ap-
peal August 10, 1982. _By Motion To Dis-
miss Appeal filed November 15, 1982, by
his attorney, Michael H. Fawer, same was
dismissed by the Fifth Circuit. (Rec. pg.
129). |

A Motion For Reduction Of Sentence
was filed March 15, 1983 and denied.
(Rec. pgs. 131, 133).

A Petition For Writ of Habeas Cor-
pus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 was filed
April 17, 1986. By Memorandum Order, the

Government was ordered to respond. (Rec.

118

pg. 135). i

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Roy Jenkins, Assistant Superinten-
dent for the Shreveport Jail, testified
as to the events on Saturday, November 1,
1980, when Petitioner arrived at the jail
at about eight or eight-thirty in the
evening, asking to see Garvin Dale White.
(Vol. I, pg. 22, line 13). Jenkins
proceeded to the holding cells and opened
the door, letting Garvin Dale White out,
who walked down the hall. (Vol. I, pg-
23, line 14). Brumfield, who was at the
booking area, asked the jailer to also
bring another Federal prisoner,, Donald
E. Snyder. Jenkins turned around to tell
Snyder that Brumfield also wanted to see
him. Snyder was in his underclothes.
Jenkins asked him to put on his coveralls
which he had in the sleeping area. The

jail elevator operator then told Jenkins

119

that White who had been proceeding down
the hall, had escaped. (Vol. I, pg. 24,
lines 23-24). After Jenkins reported the
escape to the radio operator, he informed
Brumfield who responded, "they" will
probably want to talk to me. (Vol. I, pg.
26, line 32).

The Assistant Jailer, Barbara Jean
Dickson, stated that as Jenkins walked
down the hall to get White and Snyder,
Brumfield made a phone call and asked her
to pick up the phone. Brumfield's wife
was on the phone and wanted to talk to
her about a succession. (Vol. I, pg.
53,, line 19). Previously, Brumfield had
appeared at the jail almost every night
to talk to White. (Vol. I, pg. 57, line
47).

Detective Terry Shields, Shreveport
Police Department, upon learning of the

escape returned to the Shreveport City

120

Jail. (Vol. II, pg. 99, line 12). Brun-
field had prepared a written statement
(G-11). (Voli. IZ, pe. 101, Aine 27).
Brumfield was not under arrest or a
suspect. He was requested to give a re-
corded statement in the detective's of-
fice to Shields and Detective Owens.
(Vol. II, pg. 103, lines 34-38).

A copy (G-34) of the recorded state-
ment was in accord with Brumfield's writ-
ten statement (G-11). He stated he had
come to the jail that night to talk with
White and bring him something to eat. He
said he went over to the booking desk,
signed in and called his wife, whom he
said had been working on some type of
succession for one of the jailers. Brum-
field said he asked the jailer to pick up
the telephone and talk to his wife.
After the jailer did this, Brumfield said

he left the counter or the desk and

121

walked into the conference room. He
claimed he learned of the escape after
one of the jailers came to him and told
him of it. Brumfield then left the jail
about four minutes later. (Vol. II, pg.
104, lines 42-46, pg. 105, lines 47-48).
He then returned and reported his truck
was stolen. Brumfield approached Shields
in the sront part of the office with keys
in his hand, “And he used some slang
terms and basically said that his name
was mud." Brumfield stated he had driven
the vehicle to the jail that night.
(Vol. II, poe. 105, iine $0, pe. i106,
lines 51-53). The keys that Brumfield
handed to Detective Shields were dupli-
cate keys, with Brumfieid explaining he
had thrown the original keys away. (Vol.
II, pg. 109, line 67). Brumfield
telephoned his wife to pick him up.

(Vol. II, pg. 110, line 72). He told her

122

not to have a flat tire on the way over
as he did not need anything else to go
wrong. (Vol. II, pg. 111, line 78).

When Brumfield's wife arrived, she
was informed the truck was stolen.
However, she had the original factory
keys. Brumfield had earlier told the
detectives he had thrown the factory keys
away. She stated she had gotten the fac-
tory keys off of the counter in her
house. (Vol. II, pg. 115, line 90).
These factory keys were noted by the
detective to have a sticky substance on
them as if they had been taped. (Vol.
II, pg. 115, lines 93). Officer Owens
had observed Mrs. Brumfield drive up to
the police station in the truck which
Petitioner had previously just reported
stolen. (Vol. II, pg. 114, line 86).
When Petitioner was informed the truck he

had reported stolen was parked outside,

123

he folded his arms on the desk and laid
his head in his arms, then raised his
head with watering eyes. (Vol. II, pg.
123, lines 124-127).

Brian Joffrion, United States Mar-
shal, had among his responsibilities, the
care, custody and control of Federal
prisoners within the Western District of
Louisiana. (Vol. II, pg. 200, line 4).
On November 5, 1980, he interviewed
Petitioner Brumfield in the Caddo Parish
Courthouse, first advising him of his
constitutional rights pursuant to
Miranda. Graham Rogers and Frank Harlow,
attorneys for Brumfield were present and
consentedd to the interview. Marshal
Joffrion made notes which he used later
in the ‘day or the next day to type up a
coherent report of that interview. (Vol.
II, pg. 200, lines 5-11, pg. 201, lines

12-17). There was no doubt but that the

124

interview was freely and voluntarily
given by Brumfield with the consent of
both of his attorneys who were present at
the time the interview was reduced to the
Marshal's notes. (G-44A & B). The Trial
Judge ruled that the notes could be used
by Joffrion in his testimony as he recog-
nized them to have been made by him at
the time of the taking of the statement.
(Vol. II, pg. 203, line 30 at pg. 205).

The notes taken during the interview
by Joffrion with Brumfield, were read as
follows:

A "10-5-80. Jim Brumfiéld. 11:12
A.M., Caddo Parish Jail, Caddo Parish
Courthouse. Randy Costales, Randy Cos-
tales came to Louisiana, the Shreveport-
Bossier area, several days after White
arrived. C is not a pilot xnown to have

driven Porches and black Cadillacs.

Identified 3-9-66-101-88 as Costales.

125

Costales was picked up with White at In-
dian River. Purpose of Costales'
presence in Florida. He chaffeured Brum-
field. In Shreveport to visit with.
Brumfield accompanied Costales several
times to visit White. Previously Brice.
Last name unknown. Brother-in-law of
White visited White. Costales visited
White both in and out of Brumfield's
presence. There were at least two
visits, possible more. Costales only one
staying at Brumfield office. He stayed
in front room with double bed. He had
use -- had use of Silverado pickup truck,
white four-wheel drive, big tires, mag-
nesium fin wheels, chrome grill, al-
batross. Acquired four to six months
ago. Truck registered to a fellow named
Chatham. Chatham had truck in the name
of Sullivan. Chatham came through and

Signed over some papers. It seems like I

126

picked up truck. I drove truck every
day. Saw some pumps and trucks. They
were in there when Costales drove it
back. Jim visited White, drove vehicles
alternately. Conn, Ccstales, used all
three vehicles. Costales accompanied
Brumfield to Franklinton. Introduced him
as Costales. Stayed at Billy's house.
Dale White, Garvin Dale White's son,
drove Brumfield to Florida airport. ID
3965-10180.

Friday, 10-31-80, Costales departed.
Costales mentioned Boulder, Colorado.
Arax took Costales to airport, regular
airport. Costales rode something on out-
side of box. Purpose of frequent visits
with Jim at City Jail. Brumfield, Dale
White would call Brumfield. Brumfield
and the Whites were working on some plea
bargains. Dale White had contact with

father and knew of people involved. Dale

127

would feed information to father and
Brumfield to in turn to give to DEA
agents. Short socks, may have taken
Levis. Doesn't know where sweatsuit came
from. Brought in wine. Costales once
went with Brumfield to jail in truck
prior to going to Franklinton. Costales
had Arax pick him up. He in turn was
called by Brumfield to retrieve the
truck. Was left in lot. Too, went to
Franklinton. White had never been to
Brumfield's home. How did White know
where truck was? Don't know. I can con-
ject I'd park in same place. Why not
report Lincoln's -- Lincoln stolen.
S tuation unpleasant. Warren McClawson
was to have reported Lincoln stolen.
Garvin Dale White did not have permission
to drive Lincoln. If he took it, he
stole it. ID, Sullivan, 396710180, later

identified as Hanafin. Brumfield

128

provided cash to Garvin Dale White, four
or five twenties in front of jailer.
Don't remember giving Garvin Dale White
any money in Mansfield. Don't ever
remember having any money. Purpose of
Randy coming to Shreveport: He was to
meet with Garvin Dale White. He was
going to take truck to Arizona. Opal
White is mother of Garvin Dale White.
Parker, Arizona is one residence. Jim
said he did give Dale White a thousand
dollars. Brumfield got money from Opal
White who turned it over to Dale White.
Dale drove Brumfield to Mansfield Satur-
day morning. Dale was not allowed to see
father. All property was given to Cos-
tales to care for except a little bag
jewelry in a little bag for Costales."
(Vol. II, pg. 212, line 34).

Daniel P. Merriam, officer with the

Shreveport Police Department recalled

129

seeing Brumfield's pickup truck on the
top lot of the City Hall and Murphy
Street side of the police station at
about nine-thirty p.m. When he left work
at six a.m. on the next day, October 26,
1980, the pickup truck was still parked
where he had originally seen it. (Vol.
II, pg. 154,, lines 8-10, pg. 156, line
19). He observed the pickup on October
25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 in the same spot.
He was off duty October 26, 27, 1980.
(Vol. II, pg. 156, lines 19-25).
Shreveport Police Officer William Randy
Rogers also observed the white pickup
parked on the cop lot at the same time as
Merriam made his observations. (Veli. I,
pgs. 140-13).
Special Agent James 0. Hawkins,

DEA, on November 2, 1980, executed a
search warrant at 2921 Kirk Lane, Bossier

City, Louisiana. (Voi. I2, Ge 2138,

130

lines 7-10). He found one plastic bag
containing miscellaneous pieces of iden-
tification for Michael Sullivan, and a
brown chart bag containing numerous
aeronautical charts of southern United
States, Caribbean and South America.
(Vol. II, pg. 219, line 14). On November
7, 1980, he received a telephone call
from Brumfield advising he wanted to wash
his hands of this matter and he had
several items of clothing and personal
belongings at his residence belonging to
Randy Costales which he wanted Hawkins to
pick up. (Vol. II, pg. 220, line 21).
These items were received into evidence
ass G-36-37, 47).

Billy Arnold Brumfield, brother of
Petitioner, testified that Randy Costales
came to his house with petitioner in Oc-
tober 1980. Costales stayed at the

brother's house for approximately three

131

days. Petitioner was driving a new Lin-
coln Continental. (Vol. II, po. 236,
lines 4-11, pg. 237,, line 14). Sub-
sequently on November 3, 1980, Billy Ar-
nold Brumfield received a phone call from
a person identifying himself as Garvin
Dale White. (Vol. II, pg. 239, lines 23-
24). White told him he had Petitioner's
car. Billy Arnold Brumfield asked him if
he was the fellow that had broken out of
jail. He stated he was that person.
White asked about Petitioner, and Billy
Arnold Brumfield responded that he was in
jail, as White had broken out of jail and
they put his brother in his place. (Vol.
Ii, pg. 24, line 26). White let Billy
Arnold Brumfield talk to Randy Costales
during the phone conversation. Costales
and White wanted Billy Arnold Brumfield
to get Petitioner's car which was at the

Little Rock, Arkansas Municipal Airport

132

Geman

with the keys in the gasfiller cap.
(Vol. II, pg. 243, lines 27-31). White
said he would send him some money to make
the trip to recover the car. (Vol. II,
pg. 244, lines 38-39,pg. 245, line 40).
Three days later he received a money or-
der (G-32) which he turned over to the U.
S. Marshal's Service. (Vol. II, pg. 245,
lines 46-47).

Inspector Lucian Bramel, U. S&S.
Marshal's Service, Little Rock, Arkansas,
located Petitioner's car at the Little
Rock, Airport. The 1979 Lincoln Con-
tinental was backed into the parking lot
located immediately in front of the main
hangar. (Vol. II, pgs. 266-269).

Hershel S. Garner, U. S. Marshal's
Service, Little Rock, Arkansas, located
the keys in the small door where the gas-
filler was located. (Vol. II, pg. 274,

lines 10-11).

133

It was stipulated that an expert
fingerprint examiner witness, if called
as a Government witness would testify
that it was determined that the fin-
gerprints of Randy Costales and Garvin
Dale White were taken from items con-
tained inside the 1979 Lincoln
automobile. (Vol. II, pg. 298).

Inspector Tommy L. Snow, U.S.
Marshal's Service, questioned Donald
Snyder on November 1, 1980, as to the
jailbreak by White. Snyder told Snow the
only thing he could tell him was to check
Brumfield's house. (Vol. II, po. i71,
line 18). Snow observed at about eleven-
forty-five p.m. on November 1, 1980,
there was a pick-up truck and Lincoln
Continental parked in the driveway of
2920 Kirk Lane, next to Petitioner's
residence at 2921 Kirk Lane. The Lincoln

Continental drove away, then at about

134

twelve o'clock, the pick-up left. (Vol.
II, pg. 176, lines 48-49).

When Snow requested Petitioner on
January 7, 1981 to give handwriting ex-
emplars, he said "no", but placed his
hand on Snow's shoulder saying sit down,
I'm going to tell you what happened that
night. Snow did not initiate the conver-
sation. (Vol. II, pg. 178, lines 64-65).
Snow stated as to Petitioner's volun-
teered statement while not under arrest:

at After we got inside the house,
he proceeded to tell me his version of
the events that night. He stated that
and I quote "they" had made extra keys
for his car -- for his truck, that when
White escaped, he went down and found the
extra keys that were taped to the truck.
He drove to 2920 Kirk Lane, parked the
truck in the driveway, went across the

street to 2921 to obtain a briefcase and

135

some other property that he had left
there; that while he was in 2921 Jimmie
had called Arax to come pick him up; she
backed out in the pickup and left and
when White came out of 2921, he saw the
pickup was gone so he went into 2920, got
a set of keys that was laying on the
counter, got in the Continental and drove
away." (Vol. II, pg. 179, line 68).

The Government rested its case.

(Vol. III, pg. 309).

Petitioner called Garvin Dale White
as a defense witness, who admitted escap-
ing from the Shreveport City Jail on the
night of November 1, 1980. (Veil. II,
pg. 327, line 41). He explained he went
to the white pickup truck parked on the
cop lot, retrieved a set of keys in a
magnetic box which he knew the location
of as he had previously owned it. (Vol.

III, pg. 331, lines 49-50). He drove to

136

fa i A tS

Petitioner's residence, crossed the
street to his office, entered through a
window and located his small caribou
briefcase with low altitude charts in it.
(Vol. III, pg. 339, lines 80-81, pg. 340,
line 83, pg. 346, line 118). White then
entered Petitioner's residence, finding
keys to the Lincoln. (Vol. III, pg. 348,
San6 i237}. White then drove to North
Little Rock, Arkansas, where two pilots
from Mexico flew him away. (Vol. III,
pg. 375, lines 240-243). White admitted
at the time of his arrest in Florida,
terminating his escape he was using an
alias name David DeMarco. (Vol. III, pg.
381, lines 266-268).

Petitioner's wife, Arax Brumfield,
first met Randy Costales on October 18,
1980 at 2920 Kirk Lane, Bossier City,
Louisiana. He remained in the Shreveport

area until October 28, 1980, when he left

137

by plane. (Vol. III, pg. 436, lines 10-
14). Costales came to Shreveport to try
to work on a deal to reduce some of
White's jail time, so it would be less
than life imprisonment. (Vol. Zit, oe.
437, line 18). Mrs. Brumfield was aware
that Costales brought with him belongings
of White, such as travel cases which were
placed in the Brumfield's office located
on Kirk Lane. (Vol. III, pg. 440, lines
36-38).

Mrs. Brumfield identified a set of
keys to the pick-up truck which she lent
to a neighbor to use to move some furni-
ture. These keys were returned about a
month later. This was the only set of
keys she knew of that her husband had
been using. (Vol. III, pg. 443, lines
58-62, D=-3). Penny Frazier returned the
set of keys to the Brumfield residence

the Friday night prior to the escape.

138

(Vol. III, pg. 444, lines 64-67). On the
weekend prior to the escape, the pick-up
truck was left by Petitioner on the jail
parking lot "Because it wouldn't work and
we had gone to Franklinton, so we left it
there." (Vol. III, pg. 444, lines 68-
69).

Mrs. Brumfield testified that within
three weeks prior to November 1, 1980,
she discussed with Petitioner looking
into a succession matter for jailer Bar-
bara Dickson. On the night of the es-
cape, Petitioner called her and placed
Ms. Dickson on the phone to discuss the
succession. (Vol. III, pg. 446, lines
83-84, pg. 447, lines 88-89). The next
week she heard from Petitioner was when
he called her to pick him up at the jail,
stating, "--he said something to the ef-
fect that anything that can go wrong has

gone wrong. Come pick me up." (Vol.

pe

III, pg. 448, line 99). She left her
house in the white pick-up truck with the
set of keys Penny Frazier returned.
(Vol. III, pg. 449, lines 105-107). When
she arrived at the jail, Charley Owens
asked her why her husband had reported
the truck stolen whereas she drove up in
it. (Vol. IV, pg. 454, line 132). She
spent the night in jail.

Petitioner Jimmie Arnold Brumfield
testified in his defense. He was con-
tacted by White, who was in jail in
Florida and requested to meet him.
Petitioner met with White at the Federal
Correctional Institute in Miami, remain-
ing there two or three days. (Vol. IV,
pg. 479, line 27). Petitioner met Chris
Eulberg in Florida, having heated discus-
sions concerning an airplane. (Vol. III,
pg. 479, lines 29-30). Approximately two

or three days after Petitioner returned

140

to Shreveport from Florida, White was
transferred from Florida back to
Shreveport. (Vol. IV, pg. 480, line 35).
While in Florida, Petitioner seenkous
some of White's property from the prison
authorities which he gave to Randy Cos-
tales. (Vol. IV, pg. 481, lines 41-42).
Petitioner, shortly after returning
to Shreveport, Louisiana, arranged to
represent White as to possible plea bar-
gains in return for providing informa-
tion. (Vol. IV, pg. 482, lines 48-49).
Petitioner stated on October 24,
1980 (Friday night), he went to the City
Jail to see White. The pick-up would not
start, therefore, he requested Niftali
Rodriguez to repair it. After returning
from Franklinton, on Monday night or at
one o'clock Tuesday morning, he drove the
pick-up from the jail parking lot to his

residence. (Vol. IV, pg. 509, lines 110-

141

221). On Saturday, November 1, 1980,
White asked him to meet him at the jail
as he could only get out of his cell to
make a phone call. (Vol. IV, pg. 510,
line 116). Petitioner drove to the jail
in the pick-up, parked it and used the
elevator to get to the booking desk.
(Vol. IV, pg. 511, line 122). Petitioner
said he signed in at the desk, told
jailor Jenkins he wanted to see White.
He called his wife for the purpose of
jailor Barbara Dickerson talking to her
about a succession matter. (Vol. IV, pg.
512, lines 127-130). He further tes-
tified he was waiting for Jenkins to
bring White out of his cell and saw White
and Jenkins walking toward him. (Vol.
IV, pg. 514, line 138). Petitioner went
into the conference room. Jenkins en-
tered, telling him White had just es-

caped. (Vol. IV, pg. 517, line 148). He

142

verified this with Jenkins. (Vol. IV,
pg. 518, line 152). Petitioner went to
the parking lot, finding the pick-up
missing. He returned to the jail floor
stating to Detective Shields, "I said
something to the effect that my middle
name was mud and that I had to report
this truck missing." (Vol. IV, pg. 526,
line 184). He claimed no explanation for
his wife driving to the jail to pick him
up in the pick-up truck shortly after he
reported it missing. (Vol. IV, pg. 528,
line 200, pg. 529, lines 201-202).

On cross-examination, Petitioner
stated that on November 1, 1980, while in
the jail after being advised of the es-
cape, he wrote out a statement prior to
anyone asking him for a statement. Later
they asked him for a statement. (Vol.
IV, pg. 556, lines 255-258).

The defense rested its case. (Vol.

143

V., pg. 632).

Deputy United States Marshal Tommy
L. Snow testified as a Government wit-
ness, that on November 1 and the early
morning hours of November 2, 1980, he
stationed himself next to a market to ob-
serve the residence at 2921 Kirk Lane.
He saw the Lincoln Continental leave that
night with two people in it. (Vol. V,
pg. 634, lines 3-6).

Brian Joffrion,, United States Mar-
shal, testified on rebuttal that
Petitioner had previously explained to
him that the pick-up stayed on the jail
parking lot for the reasons he and Cos-
tales went to the jail in it. When they
arrived, Costales decided he did not want
to go in and see White, so he called Arax
Brumfield, who came and picked him up.
When Brumfield completed his business, he

couldn't find his keys, so he called Cos-

144

tales who came by and picked him up. The
Marshal testified Petitioner did not men-
tion anything about the truck being
broken. (Vol. V, pg. 645, line 7, pg.
646, lines 8-9, pg. 652).

These are considered to be the
operative facts together with those set
forth in the argument section of this
brief.

The facts as to the circumstances of
the escape have been reviewed by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v.
Snyder, 707 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1983). In
the latter case, it was also stated in
the decision the record is clear that
both Snyder and Brumfield were deeply in-
volved in White's escape attempt.

Petitioner's Habeas Corpus proceed-
ing filed with this Court is an abuse of
the writ, and should be dismissed. The

Fifth Circuit stated in Sosa v. U.S., 550

145

F.2d 244 (5th Cir. 1977):

"Although the Supreme Court enforced
the general rule against surrogate ap-
peals in Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 67
S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982 (1947), the
Court was careful to preserve the not in-
considerable number of exceptions to the
rule, see 332 U.S. at 178-181 & nn. 6-13,
67 S.Ct. 1588, when "the writ has...
been entertained either without con-
Sideration of the adequacy of relief by
the appellate route or where an appeal
would have afforded an adequate remedy',
332 U.S. at 178, 67 S.Ct. at 1591. The
Court's catalogue of exceptions shows
that the archetypal case for the applica-
tion of the rule precluding collateral
attack is when direct appeal has been
foregone as a tactical maneuver. See 332
U.S. at 180-182, 67 S.Ct. 1588."

In Jones v. Estelle,, 699 F.2d (5th

146

Cir. 1983), the Fifth Circuit set forth a

standard of review in abuse of writ
cases:

"The standard under which the con-
tention that a petitioner has abused the
writ is to be decided was set out by this
Court in its earlier decision in this
case:

Under the decision of this Court in
Paprskar v. Estelle, 612 F.2d 1003 (5th
Cir. 1980), abuse of the writ for failure
to assert a ground for relief in a prior
petition exists only where that failure
was due to inexcusable neglect or inten-
tional relinquishment. (emphasis in
original)."

Petitioner states the following
reason for dismissing his appeal:

"Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II appealed
the decision, however, after he arrived

at the Federal Correctional Institute, it

147

was made clear to him that if he
proceeded with the appeal, his chances of
parole would be greatly reduced and that
life at the prison would be made more
difficult. Pursuant to those warnings,
Jimmie Arnold Brumfield II dismissed his
appeal." (Paragraph 5 - Habeas Motion,
pg. 3).

This reason for deliberating bypass-
ing the appellate process is incredulous,
particularly when he was represented by
Michael S. Fawer, known as a competent
expert attorney in the field of criminal
law. It would appear that awaiting the
conclusion of the appeals of Garvin Dale
White, (U.S. v. White, 748 F.2d 257 (5th
Cir. 1984) and Donald Ray Snyder, (U.S.
v. Snyder, 707 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1983),
and then a considerable time, accrued as
a tactical advantage to Petitioner not

permitted to be a justifiable excuse for

148

not pursuing an appeal. To adopt

Petitioner's reasoning which is prepos-
terous, would allow other incarcerated
prisoners to bypass the direct appeals
route. In addition, Petitioner and his
wife were both attorneys. Accordingly,
there was abundant legal assistance to
continue the appeal which he voluntarily
chose to abandon. By way of summary, it
can be said Brumfield failed to appeal
his conviction, subjecting his case to
charges of deliberate bypass, see
Montgomery v. United States, 469 F.2d 148
(Sth Cir. 1972), procedural default,
United States v. Frady,, 456 U.S. 152,
166-68 (1982), and waiver off those non-
constitutional claims which could have
been raised on direct appeal, United
States v. Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226, 1230
n.1 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly,

Petitioner's habeas proceedings should be

149

dismissed summarily.

In Paragraph 6 of his habeas
proceeding, he sets forth unsupported
vague conclusionary allegations. In sec-
tion "a.", he alleges he was denied his
right to a jury trial due to pressure
placed on him by his wife. Contrary to
this present assertion, the Waiver of
Trial By Jury signed June 9, 1982, con-
tains thereon the following statement of
his retained attorney, J. Stacey Freeman:

"I, J. Stacey Freeman, Attorney
and Counselor-at-law, represent that I am
attorney of record for JIMMIE A. BRUM-
FIELD, II, Defendant herein; that prior
to the signing of the foregoing waiver,
the Defendant above named was fully ad-
vised as to the rights of an accused, un-
der the Constitution and laws of the

United States, toa speedy and public

trial by jury, and further represent

that, in my opinion, the above waiver by

the Defendant, JIMMIE A. BRUMFIELD, II,
of trial by jury, is voluntarily and un-
derstandably made, and recommends to the
Court that the waiver be approved."
(Rec. pg. 105).

If such concrete statements in writ-
ing, contained in the Waiver of Trial By
Jury, as made by Petitioner and his At-
torney, could at this time, be dis-
regarded as suggested by Petitioner, a
precedent would be set where there would
be no finality to criminal trials. The
totality of the circumstances reflecting
such a claim at this late date mitigates
against acceptance, but that the claim be
rejected as frivolous.

Also in Paragraph 6 of his habeas
petition, it is alleged the Trial Judge
was biased, therefore he was denied his

right to a trial by an impartial trier of

151

tile

fact. No motion was filed in the Dis-
trict Court for recusal of the Trial
Judge on the basis of prejudice or bias.

Petitioner makes his allegations in
his habeas corpus petition to this court
under oath. Insofar as the allegations
raise allegations of bias and prejudice,
they are made too late in time and are
patently without merit.

Appellant should have filed an Af-
fidavit timely prior to trial as provided
in 28 U.S.C. 144 nd 555(a) pursuant to a
motion. The affidavit would, in the pre-
trial setting, have been judged as to
sufficiency on the following test:

"1. The facts must be material and
stated with particularity;

al The facts must be such that,
if true they would convince a reasonable
man that a bias exists;

"3. The facts must who the bias

132

is personal, as opposed to judicial, in
nature."

See U.S. v. Miranne, 688 F.2d 980
(Sth Cir. 1982).

The Trial Judge questioned
Petitioner to clarify his testimony.
(Vol. V, pgs. 611-628). Insofar as al-
legations are made, that the Trial Judge
participated in questioning witnesses,
there was no error. In U.S. v. Owens,,
453 F.2d 355 (5th Cir. 1971), the Fifth
Circuit held it was the duty of the trial
court to conduct an orderly trial and to
make certain as far as possible, that
there is no

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_0305%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.