[Freethe SF8] Appelate court to consider suppression of SF 8 torture statements

[SF-8 case]

The California State Appellate court has agreed 
to consider a writ filed by Attorney Randy 
Montesano on behalf of one of the San Francisco 
8, Harold Taylor. Montesano found it 
“encouraging” that his collateral estoppel motion 
“may yet get a fair hearing.”

Montesano’s original argument asking that 
statements made under torture by Harold Taylor in 
1973 be precluded from the current case was 
denied by SF 8 presiding judge Moscone in October.

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

In December 1974 a Los Angeles judge ruled these 
same statements inadmissible in a trial that 
ultimately resulted in Harold Taylor's acquittal. 
That case involved a police attack on a car of 
Black activists in which all three – Ray 
Boudreaux, John Bowman and Harold Taylor – were 
fired upon and shot multiple times. After Harold 
Taylor’s acquittal, charges were dismissed against Boudreaux and Bowman.

Randy Montesano argued passionately October 10th 
that the government is continuing in its pattern 
and practice of trampling on these defendant’s 
rights. "The prosecution is trying to litigate 
the use of coerced and torture-induced statements 
again," he said, "because of sour grapes" as the 
court in the mid 1970s heard 8 days of testimony 
, including 13 witnesses and concluded that 
Harold Taylor's statements were not made 
voluntarily in New Orleans. Montesano argued that 
they have no right to use these same "statements" 
just because they didn't like the 33-year old 
outcome. He reiterated that his client still 
suffers physically and from post traumatic stress 
disorder, some 36 years later.

Judge Moscone denied the motion on narrow legal 
grounds saying that the Los Angeles decision was 
not a final adjudication. Moscone did leave the 
door open for the suppression of these statements 
in future hearings. That hearing would force the 
government to either produce the same witnesses 
and evidence or face the consequences of the 
absence of evidence, transcripts and witnesses.

“So why are we doing this all again?” asks 
Montesano. Apparently, the California State 
Appeals court found enough merit in the issue of 
collateral estoppel to give the prosecution until 
November 26th to respond to the appellate writ. 
“At the very least we can now take a fresh look 
at the court’s decision,” according to Montesano, 
“and see whether Moscone was justified in denying the original arguments.”


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/cdhrsupport_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20071120/24296240/attachment.html