[Freethe SF8] SF 8 to enter pleas January 10th - Court Update

[SF-8 case]

Judge Moscone set a January 10th date for the San 
Francisco 8 to officially enter pleas.

In addition the defense will call former 
Assistant SF District Attorney Thomas Norman to 
court to answer questions about why he decided to 
not pursue this case against some of the same defendants in 1975.

The Judge will also resolve open questions about 
which documents currently under seal will be 
unsealed, which will remain under seal, and which 
will be released in redacted form.

Moscone will also hear arguments January 10th 
about several demurrers filed by the defense. 
Basically a demurrer says “even if what you 
charged is true it is insufficient to proceed.” 
The motions were filed on the basis that the 
complaint bars prosecution because of:
    * Unjustified delays in charging;
    * That the “serious felony” enhancements were 
not law at the time of the alleged crime;
    * That the complaint is so vague and 
insufficient that the defendants cannot defend against the allegations;
    * That the prior adjudication in 1975 bars 
re-prosecution  because of double jeopardy and/or collateral estoppel;
    * And that the conduct charged in the 
conspiracy count (acts between 1968 and 1973) 
were the subject of other adjudications and 
subject to pleas of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.

Collateral estoppel prevents a party to a lawsuit 
from raising a fact or issue which was already 
decided against them in another lawsuit.

Moscone also set April 21, 2008 for the beginning 
of the preliminary hearing in the SF 8 case. The 
judge made it clear that he considers this a 
unique case and if the prosecution can’t make a 
sufficient showing with evidence at the 
preliminary hearing, that he is obligated to 
dismiss the case. According to Attorney Chuck 
Bourdon “then the court won’t even reach the 
motion to dismiss for pre-charging delay. Even if 
the court finds sufficient evidence to proceed at 
that time, the judge will then consider whether 
there was sufficient justification to bring the case after so many years.”

The defense team asked Judge Moscone to order the 
prosecution to meet a set compliance deadline by 
which they would either provide missing evidence 
or make clear what evidence is missing or has 
been destroyed. Defense attorneys were arguing 
that after 35 years, there either is no new 
evidence, or if there is, they have a right to see it.

Chuck Bourdon, who represents Francisco Torres, 
pointed out that latent fingerprint evidence 
attributed to Cisco by the prosecution, were 
tested in 1971 by the FBI and SF Police with 
negative results, were tested again in 1972 by 
the SF Police with negative results and again in 
1975 by the FBI labs, again with no match to any 
of the defendants. Another 2005 print analysis 
request has yet to be replied to. “There are no 
substantiating reports in any of these results 
which implicate anyone in the case, yet 
significant information that would allow the 
examination of results (which would benefit the 
defense) have been made available.” Further 
arguing that there is no justification for these 
decades of delay, Bourdon also cited a 1977 FBI 
memorandum referencing comments by Frank McCoy 
(who was one of the SF police investigators 
present in New Orleans during the torture of John 
Bowman, Harold Taylor and Ruben Scott) indicating 
that there was no basis for any optimism on the 
part of the police or prosecution given the 1975 
suppression of Ruben Scott’s torture statements 
as there was no other substantiating evidence available to them.

The Judge also declined to rule on a motion by 
Hank Jones’ attorney, John Philipsborn stating 
that the defense has a right to all exculpatory 
evidence in a timely manner and asking for a 
definitive deadline by which these matters would be resolved.

Dave Druliner, the California prosecutor opposed 
any court order that would set any deadline, but 
admitted that after providing over 104,000 pages 
of documents “we can’t give you something we 
don’t have,” and that what the defense is asking 
for either “doesn’t exist or hasn’t been found 
yet.” Noting an example he said of the shotgun 
alleged to be linked to the 1971 murder of 
Sergeant Young in San Francisco, “we don’t know 
where the shotgun is but we still hope to find 
it.”  (this after 35 years of looking!)

Judge Moscone also stated that while the defense 
has no right to understand the protocols of the 
Phoenix Taskforce – the multi-agency program 
which is responsible for bringing about this 
prosecution – the defense does have the right to 
subpoena documents from all the agencies involved 
(The SF Police, the New Orleans Police, the FBI 
the California Bureau of Investigation and the 
Attorney Generals offices. The defense has been 
demanding disclosure about how this Taskforce can 
reopen this case when there is no new physical 
evidence and when charges were dropped in the 1970s for lack of evidence.

A large picket line preceded the hearing 
demanding the dropping of charges against the SF 
8. The courtroom today was packed beyond capacity 
forcing some people to wait for a morning recess 
to attend – all the defendants were in court were 
part of a joint meeting which included Jalil 
Muntaqim and Herman Bell who remain in custody. A 
Berkeley High School class attended the hearing, 
raising everyone’s energy and spirits. The 
brothers who are out on bail participated in 
standing-room only events in both New York City 
and San Francisco this last weekend.

- claude marks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/cdhrsupport_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20071203/6e4334f2/attachment.html