[Peace-discuss] St. Patrick Four trial

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

PLEASE POST TO FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Dear Friends,  Please read below, the latest news
of the St. Patrick Four defense, whose trial begins
next Tuesday, April 6th, in Tompkins County Court
in downtown Ithaca, NY.  The trial may take between
5 to 7 days, beginning with jury selection on April 6th.
Thanks for the rousing support shown at the Noche Latina
dinner dance with 300 plus coming to celebrate and
donate to the St. Patrick Four defense fund!  If you
haven't had a chance, you can donate to the
Ithaca Catholic Worker - memo: St. Pat's 4 trial.
Send to address below & it will be forwarded to them.

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

>>Defense Limited for St. Patrick Four
>>
>>For More Information: Jessica Stewart 256-8529 or js6076 at msn.com
>>March 30th, 2004
>>For Immediate Release, Ithaca, NY
>>
>>The St. Patrick Four, Daniel Burns, Peter De Mott, Clare Grady and Teresa 
>>Grady, and their supporters were disappointed Saturday, March 27th,  to 
>>learn that their chance to defend themselves has been curtailed.
>>
>>Judge M. John Sherman ruled in a written decision that the four will be 
>>limited in their assertion of the defenses of necessity and international 
>>law.  In his ruling, Judge Sherman prohibited any expert witnesses or 
>>documentary evidence relating to necessity or international law, but said 
>>that the defendants could speak to these matters in their personal 
>>testimony.  He found that there was "no applicability of [international 
>>law] in the present case" and that "the proffered proof does not 
>>demonstrate the type of true emergency envisioned by the [necessity] 
statute."
>>
>>  "This decision is a blow to our defense and a blow to the American 
>> right of trial by jury", said Daniel Burns.  "How can a jury accurately 
>> determine guilt or innocence when they are not allowed to hear the whole 
>> truth?"
>>
>>Noted attorney and Loyola University Law professor William Quigley, who 
>>is part of the legal team, said "This is another tragic step towards 
>>depriving citizens of the right to a full and complete jury 
>>trial.  Especially in times of national and international crisis like the 
>>present, it is important for regular citizens to have a chance to hear 
>>all the evidence about the conduct of our government."
>>
>>The four are charged with felony criminal mischief for an act of 
>>nonviolent civil resistance to war at the recruiting center on March 17, 
>>2003, two days before the invasion of Iraq.  They respectfully and 
>>carefully poured a small amount of blood around the vestibule of the 
>>center, knelt and prayed.  Teresa Grady said, "We did this to make 
>>visible the bloodshed that would result from our government's criminal 
>>actions."
>>
>>Specifically Judge Sherman ruled that former Attorney General Ramsey 
>>Clark would not be allowed to offer expert testimony on international 
>>law.  Had he been allowed to testify, Mr. Clark would have testified that 
>>the war on Iraq was illegal under international law.   Mr. Clark would 
>>have informed the jury that according to the US Constitution, Article 6, 
>>the United States is bound by international law.
>>
>>Mr. Clark would also have testified that citizens have a right and 
>>obligation under the Nuremburg Principles, a body of international law, 
>>to intervene when their government is acting criminally; otherwise they 
>>face criminal liability themselves.
>>
>>Clare Grady said, "This ruling is an attempt to prevent citizens from 
>>holding our government accountable for illegal and unjust actions."
>>
>>Judge Sherman prohibited the necessity defense on the basis of an 
>>appellate court case, People v Craig, a trespass case involving a protest 
>>against US crimes against Nicaragua.  The crux of the necessity defense 
>>is that an act which would otherwise be criminal is not criminal when 
>>taken to prevent a greater harm.  Appellate courts rulings are 
>>contradictory on the issue of the right of defendants to present the 
>>defense of necessity.
>>
>>"I am saddened," said Teresa Grady, "that both the Court in Craig and 
>>Judge Sherman were not able to show courage and foresight in ruling on 
>>whether citizens seeking to prevent illegal activities by their 
>>government have a right to offer a full defense.  When judges make these 
>>types of rulings, it sends the signal to our leaders that they are free 
>>to act with impunity."
>>
>>"How a person could find that, immediately before 'Shock and Awe' began, 
>>wanton killing and destruction was not imminent or that the harm was 
>>speculative, is beyond me", said Peter De Mott.  De Mott went on to say, 
>>"Our country was about to engage in an illegal action that would take the 
>>lives of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and others and was stirring 
>>outrage in much of the world.  To my mind, that certainly constitutes an 
>>emergency."