U.S. JUDGE WANTS MORE DOCUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES IN NEELY CASE

Former Christiansburg Lawyer Convicted Of Drug And Money Laundering Charges
Says New Evidence Will Clear Him

At the hearing, Neely called Thomas Blaylock, one of the attorneys who
defended him during his 1993 trial, to testify.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Glen E. Conrad ascended to the bench and surveyed the
courtroom.

"I see all the usual suspects have arrived," Conrad said at a hearing
Thursday in Roanoke.

The usual suspects included former Christiansburg lawyer Keith Neely, who
is seeking to have his 1993 conviction on drug and money laundering charges
set aside on the basis that he has newly discovered evidence; his lawyer,
Max Jenkins; U.S. Attorney Ruth Plagenhoef ; Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie
Dudley; and Keith Neely's mother, June Neely.

After a four-hour hearing largely devoted to Neely's allegations that
federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have repeatedly
withheld information that could have exonerated him, Conrad ruled that both
Neely and the prosecutors should submit more documents within 11 working days.

Conrad is responsible for writing a report and recommendation to Senior
U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser, who will ultimately decide whether Neely
has demonstrated that he uncovered new evidence.

Conrad also tentatively scheduled an evidentiary hearing in the case for
Aug. 22, though he said he was hoping to write his report to Kiser based on
the documents he asked both sides to submit

At the hearing, Neely called Thomas Blaylock, one of the attorneys who
defended him during his 1993 trial, to testify.

Blaylock testified that there were numerous occasions when the materials he
requested to prepare for Neely's trial weren't provided. Assistant U.S.
Attorney Karen Peters prosecuted the case.

"I had a harder time in this case getting my discovery than I did in other
cases," Blaylock said. He added that the case was "hotly contested" from
the day it started.

Neely tried to refer to testimony during his trial to the effect that
Peters was pursuing the case against him for personal reasons, but
Plagenhoef objected.

At one point Neely asked Blaylock:

"Was that one of the theories of the defense, that the government was out
to get Keith Neely?" Neely asked.

"Yes," Blaylock replied.

Another question that was raised was just how much information prosecutors
made available to Neely's lawyers prior to his trial. Neely has argued
repeatedly that the prosecutors have held back documents - which they are
required to turn over - that would exonerate him.

Blaylock testified that his secretary at the time made copies of about
6,000 pages of documents. Plagenhoef asked Blaylock on cross-examination
whether he was aware that his former secretary later swore in an affidavit
that there were in fact 20,000 pages of documents. Blaylock replied that he
was not aware of that.

Neely raised the question again of a Customs document from the Bahamas on
which he allegedly forged the name of Michael Giacolone, whom Neely was
traveling with at the time. Giacolone, who testified against Neely at his
trial, eventually recanted his testimony.

Neely has repeatedly argued that if his defense team had had access to the
Customs document, which Neely has said he did not sign, they would have
been able to impeach Giacolone as a witness during the trial.

Plagenhoef questioned how Neely's other attorney, Marvin Miller, could have
mentioned the Customs document during his closing argument at Neely's trial
if he didn't know about its existence.

Neely also raised the question again of whether the prosecution has turned
over everything it has with regard to Donald Kimbler, the prosecution's
main witness against Neely. Kimbler has since died.

Plagenhoef at times appeared frustrated with Neely's arguments, such as the
one that he had not received court document her office had sent to Jenkins'
office. It came out later in the hearing that the document had in fact arrived.

Still, Neely expressed that he was pleased with how Plagenhoef was
responding to his requests for information. "It's amazing how we get along,
much better than others in the past," Neely said at one point during the
hearing.

"I believe you on that," Plagenhoef said pointedly.

Conrad repeatedly chastised Neely for rearguing issues during the hearing.
Though Conrad found that the prosecution had turned over all it had in
several instances, he granted Neely's request to again enter orders asking
the government to turn over grand jury transcripts and documents pertaining
to his case, if it hadn't already.

But referring to Peters and Gerald Fayed, a government agent who worked on
the case, Conrad said, "As yet, there is nothing to indicate any complicity
on their part."