Posted on 01/17/2011 1:30:56 PM PST by jeannineinsd
SAN DIEGO — The U.S. Department of Justice said Monday it will oppose moving the case of accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner out of Arizona to another location, including San Diego.
The statement pushed back at a report by The Washington Post Sunday that cited anonymous federal law enforcement sources saying “federal court authorities” were preparing for the Loughner case to be moved in the next few weeks because of the massive publicity about the case in the state.
He is accused of killing six people, including a federal judge, and shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz,, at an event in Tucscon that the congresswoman held to meet constituents.
Last week, San Diego federal Judge Larry A. Burns was designated to hear the case after the entire Arizona federal bench recused itself to avoid the appearance of bias against Loughner. The district’s chief judge, John Roll, was killed in the Jan. 8 rampage.
Loughner is represented by a trio of lawyers from San Diego — Judy Clarke, Mark Fleming and Reuben Cahn, head of the local federal defender’s office.
While the San Diego connections have given rise to speculation the trial will end up here, several steps must first be taken.
Clarke would have to file a formal motion to change the venue under the federal rules of criminal procedure. She has indicated she would do so, and most legal observers expect that to happen.
But a Justice Department spokesman said Monday the department plans to pursue the case in Arizona and will fight any move to change the location.
The Washington Post news report said that the final decision to move the case would be made by current Arizona District Chief Judge Roslyn Silver.
But it was Silver who last week signed an order recusing all Arizona judges from considering any matters related to the case, so it is unlikely she would be able to rule on such a crucial matter as a venue change.
Also, under federal court rules, the trial judge — in this case, that is Burns — makes the decision on whether a case should be moved. The rule requires that “the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.”
Loughner is charged with five counts, including attempted assassination of a member of Congress and killing an officer and employee of the United States stemming from the Jan. 8 shooting spree at a supermarket parking lot in Tucson. A federal judge from Arizona was killed and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was wounded in the head.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2658244/posts
Maybe they should hold the trial in Gitmo’, or maybe NYC.
They should move it to Bezerkeley .. he’s guaranteed a sizeable jury pool of his ‘peers’ there.
It sounds as though Holder wants the case kept in Arizona so the ‘RATS can beat us over the head with it everyday with their whines and rants about Loughner being “tortured” in an Arizona jail and his not having the chance of receiving a “fair” trial in Arizona. oy.
There is something being hidden here. Not sure what or why, but this is another one of the many odd things about this case and reactions to it.
I agree. What is the basis for DOJ to not want to move this? What difference does it make to DOJ?
The Feds already have their control mechanisms in place in Arizona.
The DNC is working to taint the Jury pool and don’t want the Trial moved.
SD makes sense to me.
That idiot of a sheriff has screwed up the jury pool in AZ.Want to bet every member of the pool will be asked if they belong to some tea party
What do they want? It seems that there will eventually, no matter where the trial is held, be a verdict of either guilty or of not guilty by virtue of insanity. Should the government want to put on “evidence” that they whole thing is the fault of Governor Palin, et al, the venue won’t matter.
I don’t understand how the government would be advantaged by a move other perhaps than by eliminating one basis for appeal should he be found guilty and not insane. It seems that the pre-trial publicity adverse to the nut (and I haven’t seen much favorable to him) has been rampant nationwide rather than uniquely in Arizona. Another issue, of course, involves the difficulty of transporting witnesses to a new venue. That would be inconvenient but far from impossible to do.
do the liberals see a second “Scopes” show-trial here ?
The crimes were committed in Arizona. The trial should be held in Arizona. If there is any question about the trial no being fair, then that issue can be taken up on appeal.
LLS
I gather that just about every federal judge in southern Arizona, probably including Phoenix, has recused themselves because they were too close to the dead federal judge.
But moving the case to San Diego doesn’t seem to make it any better, because both AZ and CA are in the 9th Circuit, and the judge knew a whole bunch of other judges in CA.
However, both Utah and New Mexico are in the 10th Circuit, so there would probably be no problem finding a judge there. Yet there is probably some tradition or precedent against jumping between federal judicial districts.
It is my understanding (and I may be wrong) that the federal murder charge is limited to Judge Roll and requires proof that he was "engaged in official duties" when he was murdered.
The Arizona state murder charges will be tried in Arizona. The state charges may be moved out of Tucson but cannot be moved out of the state. I hope they try them one at a time. Six possible death penalties.
I’m confused. I thought all the Federal Judges in AZ were recused because their boss was one of the dead? Wouldn’t that necessitate a change in venue?
How can you have a trial without a Judge?
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.