Prosecution Case

Compared to the defense, the prosecution did little: no witnesses called, no exhibits introduced. The prosecution team of lawyers did not cross examine the defense witnesses extensively, mainly asking if the witness had ever met Karlton Armstrong and establishing that, except for his parents, only three of the more than forty had met Karlton and even they had little to say about him.

The major presentation by the prosecution, in addition to the statement of facts submitted in support of Armstrong’s guilty plea, was the state’s summary. Michael Zaleski, an assistant attorney general for Wisconsin, reviewed Karlton’s actions and their ramifications. His several bombings caused $2.6 million damage to twenty-six buildings. Five persons were injured in Sterling Hall—none of them connected to the AMRC—and one person was injured in the Hospital nearby. Many years of research were destroyed. Robert Fassnacht, a 33-year-old postdoctoral physicist studying problems of electrical conductors, was killed, leaving a wife, a three-year-old son, and one-year-old twin daughters. Zaleski argued that, contrary to Armstrong’s testimony, he had not been careful. If the defense portrayed Armstrong as an idealist frustrated by the manipulations of the war machine, Zaleski painted a picture of an egotistical loser so stultified by his desire for recognition that he would rally to any cause. “He had to excel and be recognized, and the only way he could do it was to make a bigger bomb than the next guy, and he did it.” As an example of his egoism, Zaleski pointed out that when someone yawned during Armstrong’s testimony on the stand he called the court’s attention to it. He wanted every word of his etched in slate for future generations, Zaleski concluded, but, in fact, Armstrong’s words which should be so etched are, “I am not repentant. I’d do it again."⁴¹

The court was asked to condone Armstrong’s actions, Zaleski suggested, by giving him a mere slap on the wrist. “Imagine the society we’d have if every time a person felt morally committed to a cause he could throw around one-ton bombs. I suppose if Karl felt firmly committed to zero-population growth, he’d think he was morally justified in playing King Herod.” Although Armstrong condemns the government, says it is immoral and should be overthrown, Zaleski observed, the conduct of Agnew and the Watergate defendants is the same as his: “It is the same old thing that when you feel justified—even if it is illegal—go ahead and act. He condemns these people, but he thinks he should go free.” That is the anarchical law of the lynch mob, taking the law into our own hands.⁴²