Posted on 08/14/2006 9:35:20 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
LOS ANGELES
Attorneys who failed to get kingpins of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang acquitted on charges of murder, conspiracy and racketeering are trying a novel approach to save their clients from possible death sentences.
The defense for Barry "The Baron" Mills and Tyler "The Hulk" Bingham have filed motions with a federal judge arguing that the government must present live witnesses during their clients' sentencing phase or nothing at all.
The argument is based on the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision Crawford v. Washington, in which the high court found that defendants have the right to confront witnesses whose testimony is used against them.
Defense attorneys say that if U.S. District Judge David O. Carter sides with them he will be the first to apply the Supreme Court decision to the sentencing phase of a death penalty case.
The ruling could severely undermine the prosecution's plan for the sentencing phase of the Aryan Brotherhood trial, the defense claims.
The judge made a tentative ruling in the defense's favor on July 28, the day the jury returned the verdicts against Mills, Bingham and two others. Defense attorneys then filed motions in support of his tentative ruling and prosecutors replied a short time later with more briefing papers.
Carter is expected to issue a binding ruling soon, possibly as early as Tuesday. The debate over the question has pushed back the sentencing phase of the trial by two weeks, until Aug. 29.
Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, said that the government's case is built entirely on "documentary evidence." Those records could include letters, court transcripts, disciplinary records and other paperwork. The government currently plans on no live witnesses, he said.
"If the (tentative) ruling holds, it would require us to provide live testimony," said Mrozek. "We'll do our best to present the most comprehensive case that we can."
That could be difficult for the government because of the case's complexity and the fact that the convictions include crimes that stretch back 30 years.
The trial is part of one of the largest federal capital cases, with more than a dozen people potentially facing the death penalty. More defendants face trials in Los Angeles later this year.
Defense attorney H. Dean Steward said the judge's tentative ruling is a boon to his client, Barry Mills.
"He's excluded a number of bad things in Barry's past that they're either going to have to find a 30-year-old witness or they're going to have to preclude that," Steward said. "The government now is in the position that they have to change their plan for the penalty phase and seek out witnesses."
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., said for now the ruling would only apply to the judge's federal district, but added that it could eventually influence other cases if it makes its way to the high court through the appeals process.
"The Supreme Court has taken a close look at death penalty cases over the years and has changed the rules in a number of areas," he said. "I think they've been concerned about how it's been applied."
The judge alluded to the complexity of a federal death penalty case two weeks ago, after the jury returned convictions against Mills, Bingham and two other Aryan Brotherhood members on charges of murder, conspiracy and racketeering in a prosecution aimed at dismantling the violent white supremacist organization.
Only 37 people have been executed by the federal government since 1927 and only three since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988, Dieter said.
Mills, Bingham, Edgar "The Snail" Hevle and Christopher Overton Gibson were all convicted under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, and offenses known as Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering.
The so-called VICAR verdicts make Mills and Bingham eligible for the death penalty for ordering a race riot at a federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., that resulted in the deaths of two black inmates.
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that petitioner Michael Crawford had the right to cross-examine his wife, who gave a tape-recorded interview with police after Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape her.
In the taped interview, which was played for the jury, Crawford's wife testified that she couldn't be sure the victim was holding a weapon at the time of the stabbing, contradicting her husband who said he acted in self-defense. His wife did not testify during the trial because of the state marital privilege.
fyi
Wouldn't the sentence(s) for murder, racketeering, etc. be severe anyway?
Regardless, the legal profession has found another way to sink even lower.
They should be opposed as much as Islam.
What is disgusting as well as personally insulting is you forming an opinion about a case you're familiar with solely from reading newspapers. These people are Americans and have families and loved ones just like you or me. White supremacy was tagged onto this group in the sixties and it's people such as yourself along with the desire to sell newspapers that has allowed this stigma to stick. This white supremacy tag has long been dropped on the inside just has it has on the outside since the wave of political correctness and the basic fact that it's just plain wrong. It would behove you to do a bit of research. How dare you compare any American citizen to the likes of Islamic Fascists. It's quick-to-judge opinions like yours that continue to unite the term Conservatism with the Religious Right, and fanatic Right To Lifers. You're guilty of the same narrow mindedness. I'm sure you're not aware that one of the four convicted a few weeks ago was represented at trial by a black federal defense attorney. Strange that a white supremacist would tolerate having an african american represent him in such a important death penalty case, don't you think?
Maybe that should have given you the first clue before you rushed to what you might describe as a conservative's opinion. This group was established for one reason;to stay alive and to protect others within a ruthless prison system. Unless you understand it, please refrain from commenting about it. You are spreading the same hatred you have wrongly accused others of, only under the guise of Conservatism. I would hope you're better than that. (I thought personal attacks were not allowed on this site. I guess it depends on who you are attacking.)
Last 5 letters of your name say it all. Are you still in prison?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.