A bit more on the case against the Hutaree

In a development described as "unprecedented," a federal court official in Detroit filed an affidavit today with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying he wanted to correct claims made by prosecutors in the Hutaree militia case."This affidavit is being submitted to correct the record, and any misunderstanding (Assistant U.S. Attorney) Mr. (Ronald) Waterstreet had about our conversation," Chief Pretrial Services Officer Alan Murray said in a court filing.

Damn. So a federal court official is filing to correct 'errors'- which in some cases appear to be outright lies- in the papers filed by the federal prosecutor.
Michael Rataj, an attorney for Hutaree defendant Tina Stone, said Murray's action is unprecedented. "Obviously, Waterstreet has completely misrepresented what was discussed with pretrial services," he said.

So either Waterstreet wasn't paying attention, or threw a bunch of crap in to try to steamroll the judge and get what he wanted, from the sound of it. And- I'm guessing- the judge is pissed or Murray knows the judge WILL be pissed and is trying to correct this before it screws things up too badly. I admit to no great knowledge of court works, I do know that for one federal official to try to correct the screwups of another in a case like this, in an official filing, says bad things about the original official's actions and words.


Over at Big Government is this piece on the case. One part:
Judge Roberts, however, pointed out that ” the government may not merely come before the trial court, present its indictment, and thereby send the defendant off to jail, foreclosing any further discussion. Rather the defendant . . . must be afforded the opportunity for a hearing at which he may come forward with evidence to meet his burden of production, leaving on the government the ultimate burden of persuasion.” Order, page 7, citing United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1478 (11th Cir. 1985). So the court-appointed federal public defenders submitted their arguments to the court on behalf of the Hutaree, with results that have apparently stunned the prosecutors.

“Defendants believe that because the weight of the evidence is insubstantial, the Court should have serious reservations about denying them bail… the Government failed to persuade the Court that Defendants must be held until trial.”

In essence, the court has smacked the prosecutors in the face by saying that there is so very little weight to the evidence in their case that, even though two of the charges are extremely serious, the defendants cannot be held without bail pending trial:

Nonetheless, the weight of the evidence the Government has against Defendants is an important consideration. In fact, the seriousness of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and whether the Defendants are a danger to the community, are inextricably intertwined; the Court’s own Pretrial Services Agency, which makes bond recommendations, concluded that but for the seriousness of the offenses charged, the Defendants are all people it would normally recommend for release on bond.

Allow me to translate this for you: the evidence was thin enough that the Court would not normally hold these men without bail. However, because two of the charges are so serious, they have been held without bail until now.

Since the charges are so serious, the judge has to be pretty convinced that the government’s case is very weak before she will let the men out on bail. Here is the key to the entire case:

The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators. But, the Defendants are also correct: their right to engage in hatefilled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection. Because speech is so much a part of the Government’s case, Defendants urge the Court to look carefully at the evidence in making its bond decision. Defendants believe that because the weight of the evidence is insubstantial, the Court should have serious reservations about denying them bail. Due to the complexity of the case, and the number of Defendants, Defendants say they could be in jail for a long time, awaiting trial."

This case is looking more and more like "These guys said nasty things, and we can make an example of them!" as opposed to "These people actually violated the law, and here's the evidence." May not be the case; we'll see.