[Freethe SF8] No Ruling Yet on Dropping of Remaining Conspiracy Charges - SF8 hearing update

[SF-8 case]

Supporters of the San Francisco 8 packed the 
courtroom this morning to hear arguments about 
the dropping of conspiracy charges against 3 of 
the brothers. All eight of the brothers were in 
court along with family members and many 
supporters including Lynne Stewart, Yuri 
Kochiyama, and students from Oakland’s Metwest 
high school. On January 10, Judge Philip Moscone 
officially accepted an amended complaint by the 
prosecution in the San Francisco 8 trial – in 
effect completely dropping charges against 
Richard O’Neal who was only charged with conspiracy.

Ray Boudreaux, Richard Brown, Hank Jones, and 
Harold Taylor are now accused only of the alleged 
murder in 1971 of SF Police Sergeant John Young. 
The conspiracy counts were dropped against all 
five brothers when defense motions correctly 
challenged the charges on the grounds that the 
statute of limitations on charges of conspiracy 
in California (three years) had expired. The 
conspiracy allegations include several acts 
alleged to have taken place from 1968 to 1973.

Arguments were filed and argued orally today to 
drop the remaining conspiracy charges against 
Herman Bell, Jalil Muntaqim (Anthony Bottom) and 
Francisco Torres. The prosecution is arguing that 
the statute of limitations is tolled because the 
three men were not in California.

"This is a ridiculous argument," according to 
defense attorney Stuart Hanlon, "as these men 
were forcefully removed from the state against 
their will by being imprisoned. Following his 
acquittal on charges in New York State, Cisco 
Torres was living in New York City. All three 
were consistently available to California State prosecutors."

The purpose of tolling statutes is to discourage 
defendants from fleeing a state to avoid 
prosecution (by taking advantage of a statute of 
limitations). Arguing that this was clearly not 
the intent of Herman Bell, Jalil Muntaqim 
(Anthony Bottom) and Francisco Torres, attorneys 
argued instead that the court should recognize 
that the prosecution had years to charge these 
men, and didn’t. Attorney Mark Goldrosen, who 
represents Jalil Muntaqim, also explained that 
Jalil was in the custody of the state of 
California where he served time, and he continued 
to be in their legal custody (for over 3 years) 
when he was moved to New York State to face other 
charges. Furthermore that one of the overt acts 
being charged in the current conspiracy count was 
based on alleged acts for which Jalil was 
convicted and has already served prison time in 
California. “How can the legal process try him 
again some 37 years later for the same acts that 
he already did time for?” asked Goldrosen. “This 
kind of legal harassment is clearly prohibited by case law.”

In 1973 there was unlimited tolling of the 
statute of limitations. The purpose of tolling 
statutes were to allay the additional burden 
imposed upon timely prosecution when the 
defendant – whatever the alleged crime – is out 
of the state.  In 1984 the legislature determined 
that unlimited tolling was unreasonable and did 
not serve the interests sought to be protected by 
statutes of limitations  -  namely to prevent 
evidence from becoming stale or unavailable, to 
encourage and motivate timely investigations and 
prosecution, and to create finality or repose 
after a reasonable length of time.  Accordingly, 
the legislature remedied the problem presented by 
unlimited tolling and passed legislation to cap 
the tolling period at three years after which the 
applicable statute of limitations would begin to run.

Chuck Bourdon, who represents Francisco Torres, 
made clear that the capped tolling statute – 
limiting the tolling period to three years – 
should be made retroactively available to the 
remaining defendants charged in count two because 
that is what the legislature intended by enacting 
the remedial and ameliorative capped tolling provision.

The prosecutors argued in response that “the chase should always be on.”

Judge Moscone is expected to make a written 
ruling on the dismissal of conspiracy counts by 
Wednesday, February 13th. He will also hear 
defense motions that day at 9:30am requesting to 
interview Ruben Scott, one of the main 
prosecution witnesses. Ruben Scott was also 
arrested and tortured along with Harold Taylor 
and the recently deceased John Bowman in New 
Orleans in 1973. Ruben was interviewed in 1975 
about the torture during a brief period of 
custody in San Francisco County Jail. In that 
interview he discussed the brutality of the 
police questioning in detail. He also renounced 
the forced confessions. This led to the dropping 
of this same case when the forced statements were ruled inadmissible.

Judge Moscone will also be asked to order the 
turning over of the complete files from the San 
Francisco District Attorney who decided in 1975 
that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. 
Those files were turned over to the current 
prosecutors in 2004, according to SF District 
Attorney records, but have yet to be turned over 
in their entirety to the defense.

The preliminary hearing is scheduled to begin 
Monday, April 21 and will run several weeks from Mondays through Thursdays.









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/cdhrsupport_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080207/53ff3924/attachment.html