Neilson says he didn’t lie in affidavit for public defender
The Oxford Enterprise
Paul P. Quinn
In what has been called a “nasty” move in the case against FBI Agent Hal Neilson, the U.S. Attorney’s office filed a 12-page motion arguing Neilson shouldn’t be granted public funds to pay for his defense.
But Neilson’s lawyers responded that the government’s motion is premature because Neilson has yet to actually use any public funds on his defense.
Neilson is charged with lying to the FBI about his part ownership in the building that houses the bureau’s Oxford office. His trial was set for March 8, but U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock on Wednesday granted a continuance until Aug. 16.
Neilson has pleaded not guilty in the case.
But in an eight-page response, Neilson’s lawyers say he did not lie on his financial affidavit and that the government’s estimates about Neilson’s finances are wrong. They also write that Neilson is still paying for his defense attorneys, but he can request assistance from the court on investigative matters, expert witnesses or other costs.
Neilson also notes he is willing to liquidate all his assets to pay for his defense if the judge orders him to do so after the trial.
Writing on his legal blog nmisscommentator.com, Oxford attorney Tom Freeland called the prosecutors’ motion “a pretty nasty pleading – it’s not the pleading equivalent of a brushback pitch, this ball is being thrown straight at the batter’s head … The basic thrust of the motion is that the government thinks that Neilson could only have received appointed counsel by lying in his affidavit. Ouch!”
The Oxford Enterprise
2/21/10
Here is the response to this motion
Magnolia Tribune
