[U.S.]Prosecutors act to move [Buffalo] pro-life trial to N.Y. City

Government prosecutors took an unusual series of legal actions late Monday, seeking to prevent the case of two pro-life supporters of James C. Kopp from going to trial before a federal judge in Buffalo.

In Buffalo, they filed court papers to drop the charges they filed last year against Loretta Marra and Dennis Malvasi of Brooklyn, who are accused of helping Kopp avoid capture by the FBI after the sniper murder of an Amherst physician.

In New York City, they filed a new, greatly reduced criminal charge against Marra and Malvasi.

Essentially, prosecutors asked to have the case moved from Buffalo to New York City, where it is anticipated that the two defendants would take a plea deal comparable to one that was rejected last month by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara.

The last-minute legal maneuvers took place as Arcara and his staff were preparing for the scheduled start of jury selection today in the trial of Marra and Malvasi.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen M. Mehltretter said the actions were taken by the government for only one reason - to help win a murder conviction in the Kopp case.

If the Marra and Malvasi case went to trial, Mehltretter said, that would force public disclosures of some of the key witnesses and evidence that the government has gathered in its nearly four-year investigation into the murder of Dr. Barnett A. Slepian.

"We're not judge-shopping. We're making a strategic decision that, if this case went to trial, it could jeopardize the prosecution of James Kopp," Mehltretter said. "Obtaining a conviction in the murder of Dr. Slepian is the top priority here. The Marra and Malvasi case is only ancillary to the Kopp case."

But some court sources believe Monday's actions were intended mainly as an end-around to take the case away from Arcara. Last month, the judge upset both prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case when he refused to accept what he considered to be a cushy plea deal for the two Brookly activists.

"You can see there is one purpose here," said one lawyer who is familiar with the case, "to take this case away from Dick Arcara."

Arcara's office declined to comment Monday, except to say that jury selection for Marra and Malvasi is still scheduled to begin today. More than 100 local men and women are expected to be screened as potential jurors for a trial that was expected to last at least three weeks.

Marra, 38, is a longtime activist who participated in many abortion protests with Kopp prior to October 1998, when Kopp is accused of hiding in the woods behind Slepian's Amherst home and using a military rifle to kill the abortion provider.

Malvasi, 52, who served prison time for the bombings of abortion clinics in New York City in the 1980s, is Marra's husband. Malvasi was honored by anti-abortion activists at the January 2001 White Rose Banquet in Washington, D.C. The couple has two young children.

The two Brooklyn residents were indicted shortly after Kopp was captured by police in France in late March 2001. Prosecutors filed six felony charges against Marra and Malvasi, accusing them of sending money and information to Kopp while he was a fugitive. They are also charged with planning to allow Kopp to use their home as a "safe house" if he came back to the United States.

Monday, prosecutors said they no longer intend to pursue prosecution of those six charges, which include aiding and abetting a fugitive, obstruction of justice and perjury. They now intend to prosecute Marra and Malvasi for only one felony charge - conspiring to harbor a fugitive.

Marra and Malvasi appeared briefly with their attorneys before U.S. Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott to answer to the new charge. Both are being held without bail in local jails.

"This is going from a six-count indictment, with two 10-year felonies, to one count, with a five-year maximum," said Thomas Eoannou, Malvasi's attorney. "It's a significant reduction . . . It's a win for Malvasi."

Bruce A. Barket, Marra's attorney, was critical of Arcara. He said the judge was wrong to reject the proposed plea deal last month, and in general, has not treated the two Brooklyn activists fairly.

"Given Judge Arcara's past history with this case, I would not be surprised if he tries to take this case away from the U.S. Attorney's office, and appoint a special prosecutor to handle it," Barket said. "I am afraid that is what he is going to do. He has done that in the past, in at least one case involving a pro-life demonstrator."

In court papers seeking the dismissal of charges against Malvasi and Marra,Mehltretter said a prosecutor "must remain free to exercise judgment in determining what prosecutions will best serve the public interest."

If the Marra and Malvasi case goes to trial, she said, "the government would be required to submit evidence which exposes critical Kopp witnesses to the public and defendant Kopp."

Mehltretter said government attorneys are worried that the Kopp witnesses might be subjected to subject to "harassment . . . by the media and the public."

Kopp has denied killing Slepian. His case is not expected to go to trial until sometime next year.

> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Copying of this material is free for non-commercial educational and research use. Unless explicitly stated, copyright of this material is owned by the author and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services.

Population control freak Warren Buffett's rag ....

And have you noticed that every "physician who performs abortions," "abortion doctor," and "abortion provider" just screams, "'abortionist' is a dirty word?"

Whatever has happened to the defendant's right to know his accusers and have evidence presented against him before a trial -- never mind a trial for murder?

We are all aware of Hatfill's accusations about what the FBI, the Justice Dept. and the media have done -- but how come no one ever has raised those same concerns about the rights of James Kopp who claims he is innocent?

"the defendant's right to know his accusers and have evidence presented against him before a trial"

Before trial all the prosecutor has to disclose to the defendant is so called Brady material, that is material that is exculpatory. Here if these two people made a statement to the government that X, not Kopp shot the doctor, the government would have to turn it over to Kopp.

If however, these two gave the government a statement that they saw Kopp shoot the doctor, that statement would not have to be disclosed to Koop, pre trial.

"We are all aware of Hatfill's accusations about what the FBI, the Justice Dept. and the media have done -- but how come no one ever has raised those same concerns about the rights of James Kopp who claims he is innocent?"

In the Hatfill situation the government is harming Hatfill but not letting their accusations be tested in the crucible of a trial. There is no way for Hatfill to make the government put up or shut up.

In Kopp's case they will fight it out in court to determine whether the views of Kopp or of the Government are correct.

Whatever has happened to the defendant's right to know his accusers and have evidence presented against him before a trial -- never mind a trial for murder?

I don’t know, I don’t do any criminal law, much less out in that neck of the woods. I would think that the government has to give him lists of its potential witnesses, its exhibits, all relevant documents, that sort of thing, but the government doesn’t have to tell him exactly how it plans to use those things to tie it all together. That game plan may be what they are trying to hide, I don’t know.

patent +AMDG

Before trial all the prosecutor has to disclose to the defendant is so called Brady material, that is material that is exculpatory.

Do you mean a defendant doesn’t have any real discovery rights, to ask for all documents related to this or that, for example?

patent +AMDG

"Do you mean a defendant doesn’t have any real discovery rights, to ask for all documents related to this or that, for example?"

Yes, I know that it seems backwards, what with a person's personal liberty at stake in a criminal proceeding, that there is no right to liberal discovery of the opponent (the porsecutor)like there is in a civil proceeding.

In some Federal Judicial Districts, as "a matter of grace" the prosecutors may have an "open file policy" that is not the general policy, and it is certainly not a right.

A federal criminal trial is much more of an old fashioned "trial by ambush," which was eliminated in civil trials by generous pretrial discovery.

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.