Less than an hour after a federal jury found Ed and Elaine Brown guilty of conspiracy, weapons possession and obstruction of justice, a man claiming to be a security contractor involved in their case called Ed Brown's lawyer and said he had information that could help the defense, court documents say.


That man, who told Michael Iacapino that his name was David Quinn and that he worked for a company called the Forseti Group, said his company's employees had helped arrest the Browns – and that details about their capture offered at trial were not accurate.



Prosecutors in the case say investigators never hired Quinn or the Forseti Group, but the Browns' lawyers have relied on Quinn's phone call to ask the judge for an investigation of the potential new evidence and have called for a new trial if it is legitimate.


“The information provided by Quinn is material and relevant and could have been used at trial,” Iacapino wrote in his motion.


Earlier this month, the Browns were found guilty of a combined 11 felonies for their conduct during a nearly nine month standoff with federal officials at their castle-like home in Plainfield. Testimony at trial described stashes of homemade bombs and sniper rifles in the house, where the Browns had publicly vowed that any confrontation with law enforcement would result in violence. They face mandatory minimum sentences of 30 years in prison.


The Browns were arrested in October 2007 by a team of undercover marshals disguised as supporters. Those marshals were introduced to the couple by a confidential informant, the group's commander told jurors at trial.


According to court filings, Quinn told lawyers for both Browns that his company was hired by the U.S. Marshals Service in June 2007 and asked to help arrange for the Browns' capture. Quinn said the company ordered a psychological evaluation of Ed Brown. According to Iacapino's filing, that assessment determined that Ed Brown was mentally ill.


Quinn also disputed the details of the Browns' arrest described by a deputy U.S. marshal who testified during the trial. W.S. Robertson told jurors that his team was introduced to the Browns by a confidential informant, but said that he and his men were the ones who restrained, disarmed and handcuffed the Browns. Iacapino's motion says that Quinn alleges that the informant was the one who “disarmed and seized” Ed Brown.



The filings suggest that Quinn also shared some new information about Elaine Brown's actions on the day of the arrest, though they do not provide any details.


“Based on his observations, he drew potentially exculpatory conclusions about Elaine Brown's interactions with her husband,” says the motion penned by Elaine Brown's attorney, Bjorn Lange.


Quinn told Iacapino that he was on an “overseas trip” during the trial; he came forward after the verdict was announced because an employee who followed the trial told him about the inconsistencies, Iacapino's filing says.


The Browns' motions allege that prosecutors failed to turn over information about Quinn and the Forseti group as part of discovery. But a response filed by prosecutors argues that the government did not share such documents because they don't exist.


The prosecution filing denies that the marshals ever hired the Forseti Group, worked with Quinn or ever ordered any psychological profile of Brown.


“The (U.S. Marshals Service) did not hire or enter into a contract with the Forseti Group, or David Quinn, or any other person or entity purporting to work for or be related to the Forseti Group,” says the motion, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen.



Huftalen's filing says that a thorough survey of any marshals service employees who would know about such a contract revealed no information about the group. He also said that marshals denied ordering or receiving a psychological evaluation of the Browns “at any time or from any entity.”


Lawyers in the case have been ordered by U.S. District Judge George Singal not to make public statements. U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier declined to comment on the defense's allegations.


Lange's filing suggests that his office made some efforts to verify Quinn's story.



“The Forseti Group has a website and appears to counsel to be a legitimate private security company,” he said.


Internet searches for the company turns up two companies with that name. One site advertises a “sales training and consulting firm.” The other, for a security firm, says it's “under construction, and appears not to have been updated since 2004.



“Our primary focus is the training and certification of executive, diplomatic, and celebrity protection; law enforcement and private security tactics; and personal protection,” Forsetigroup.com says.


Phone and fax numbers listed on the site are now assigned to residential land lines in North Carolina. A page listing biographies of the company's employees does not list a David Quinn.


A young girl who answered at the advertised Forseti Group phone number said she did not know anything about the Forseti Group.


An e-mail sent to Andrew Ferguson, the “director of operations,” on Friday was not returned.


Singal has yet to rule on the motions.