Lawyer sees bias in ruling on The Five
‘There
are 40 pages of ideological prejudice in the new ruling in Atlanta,’
says Leonard Weinglass
By
Arleen Rodríguez Derivet Read Spanish Version
Taken
from Cubadebate
A
three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit of Appeals of Atlanta ratified
on June 4 the guilty verdicts of the five Cuban antiterrorists held
in U.S. prisons since 1998 and annulled the sentences of three of
them, who will have to be resentenced in Miami. At the same time, the
court reaffirmed the sentences of René González (15
years) and Gerardo Hernández (two life sentences plus 15
years). In the latter instance, the panel’s decision was 2-1. In a
16-page opinion, Judge Phyllis Kravitch stated that the government
had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that Gerardo was
guilty of the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.
The
cases of Ramón Labañino (life plus 18 years), Fernando
González (19 years) and Antonio Guerrero (life plus 10 years)
were remanded to the judge in a Florida court, who must resentence
them. Judge Joan Lenard will call an audience and hand down the new
sentences. It was Lenard who in 2001 issued the disproportionate
sentences imposed on The Five. The 99-page ruling by the Atlanta
Court, written in a politicized language that explicitly favors the
government’s position, stated that the defense arguments regarding
the charges "lacked merit."
Because
of the importance of the topic, Cubadebate brings you a literal
transcription of the interview Arleen Rodríguez had with
Leonard Weinglass, Antonio Guerrero’s attorney and a member of the
defense team for The Five Cubans imprisoned in the United States. The
dialogue was broadcast on the Round Table, the main news-analysis
program of Cuban TV, on Thursday, June 5, 2008.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
Weinglass, help us to understand. Give us a summary of the 99 pages
of the ruling by the Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Leonard
Weinglass:
In brief, what they mean is that the life sentences given to Antonio
and Ramón were lifted, and that they’re scheduled to be
resentenced in Miami, before Judge Lenard. Fernando’s sentence will
be reduced.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
But Ramón and Antonio were charged differently from Fernando.
What does it mean for the three to be remanded to Miami and what can
we expect?
Leonard
Weinglass:
When The Five were arrested in 1998, the Pentagon and the Department
of Justice issued a statement saying that the United States’ national
security had not been damaged. Now, after they’ve been in prison for
10 years, we have an assertion from a high-level court that there was
no espionage and that no top secret information was obtained or
transmitted. That’s what the Court found. Yet, they are remanded to
be resentenced and we’re not sure of what the new sentence will be,
but it wouldn’t be life imprisonment in this case. And they might
even return home.
Arleen
Rodríguez: Why
is Gerardo not included in that review?
Leonard
Weinglass:
Gerardo’s case was the simplest, according to all the lawyers, and
could have been withdrawn. However, although his case is easy from
the legal point of view, it is the most difficult from the political
point of view, due to the political climate that exists in Miami. The
[Florida] Court did not have the courage to set aside a sentence for
conspiracy to commit murder when four Miami residents were the
victims.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
The fact that the Court of Appeals in Atlanta decided to remand to
Miami the cases of Ramón, Fernando and Antonio means that the
sentences were exaggerated. That in itself is proof of misbehavior.
Isn’t it then absurd for them to be remanded to the same judge who
imposed such long sentences?
Leonard
Weinglass:
It is unfortunate. This 99-page ruling finds that Judge Lenard made
mistakes when she sentenced Fernando. She make mistakes when she
sentenced Antonio; she made mistakes when she sentenced Ramón.
She made mistakes in the instructions she gave the jury about Gerardo
and — according to two of our three [Atlanta] judges — made a
mistake when she denied a change of venue. Despite these six or seven
serious errors, the [Atlanta] court remands the case to Judge Lenard.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
Do any legal recourses remain?
Leonard
Weinglass:
Yes, we still have recourses at hand. In the first place, we can
immediately, on June 24, ask these three judges to reconsider their
decision in the light of many of the mistakes made in this ruling
they handed down. And we’re going to do that. If they do not
reconsider their thinking, we have the right to go to the Supreme
Court of the United States to reconsider all or some of the issues we
have raised, including the venue, the prosecutors’ misconduct, the
lack of evidence against Gerardo, and other issues that this court
has ruled on, including the use of a secret proceeding between the
judge and the prosecutors against The Five, and the withholding of
secret evidence that should have been shared with the defense.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
This ruling comes at a moment when the American people are focused on
the topic of the [presidential] election and perhaps are not paying
attention to other issues aside from The Five, such as a possible
pardon for Luis Posada Carriles, who is already free on the streets
of Miami. I wonder if the defense team has taken into account the
U.S. government’s double standard in relation to terrorism, which is
so evident in the casse of The Five. They’re antiterrorist warriors
and they’re in prison and there is no pardon, while a self-confessed
terrorist like Luis Posada Carriles is released. Is this taken into
account in the lawyers’ appeals?
Leonard
Weinglass:
Actually, this contradiction — which is very clear in the facts you
cited — is not available to us in the legal writings in this case.
However, in the original opinion of the first panel to which we
appealed, [the judges] wrote a special footnote in which they
referred to Carriles and described him as a terrorist. Unfortunately,
in this 99-page opinion there are no such references.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
This ruling also was made on June 4, Gerardo’s birthday. The fact
that the Court of Appeals reaffirms the sentence for one of the
weakest charges made throughout this process, i.e., conspiracy to
commit murder, and in general for the charges against Gerardo seems
to me to be a deliberate act of cruelty against this young
antiterrorist warrior. How do you see this?
Leonard
Weinglass:
That was probably not a coincidence. People even consider it an
insensitive offense against a man who served his country honorably.
However, when we lawyers read [the judges’] entire opinion,
particularly the first 40 pages, we clearly see that there is
ideological prejudice in the writing. And the fact the decision was
handed down on Gerardo’s birthday can be seen as you suggest — an
intentional gesture.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
What reasons could a lawyer like Leonard Weinglass give us to
continue to believe that some possibility exists that justice will
triumph in the U.S. legal system, in the case of The Five?
Leonard
Weinglass:
Lamentably, this is one of those situations where the government of
the United States is utiziling its justice system to achieve a
foreign-policy objective. That is why this case is different with the
case of Posada Carriles and viceversa. When this happens historically
and the existence of political prejudice is revealed, the Americans
feel greatly ashamed for their laws and the failure of the system of
justice, the courts of justice.
Arleen
Rodríguez: If
you had to give, in one sentence, your opinion of this June 4 ruling
…
Leonard
Weinglass:
At the very least, Gerardo should have been relieved of all the
sentences and all the life sentences should have been revoked. In
other words, we won the small part of the case at this moment, but
the issue of the venue remains alive and we’re going to take up
against with the Supreme Court. Fortunately, we are going to begin a
grassroots campaign to bring The Five back home. We are prepared to
continue to struggle. With luck, we shall achieve this, as we did
earlier and as we will — and must — do in the future. We won the
revocation of the life sentences and that’s a very significant
victory. But we’re really very disappointed that we didn’t win the
weakest part of the case, as presented by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
And we should have won it.
Arleen
Rodríguez: That’s
count number three, right?
Leonard
Weinglass: Yes, count number three. Any lawyer who reviews that
charge, prosecutors included, will conclude that a sentence shouldn’t
have been imposed on the basis of the evidence presented. One of the
judges wrote a 16-page opinion and said — very clearly and very
strongly — that Gerardo was not guilty of those charges. It was a
strong and unusual statement by an 85-year-old woman judge who was a
federal appeals judge for almost a quarter of a century. [Her
statement], particularly on the charge of conspiracy to commit
murder, was a historic act by a judge who sits on a bench below the
Supreme Court. She is one of the most renowned leaders in the U.S.
courts system.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
You mean Judge Kravitch.
Leonard
Weinglass: Yes, Kravitch. She was appointed by [President Jimmy]
Carter, a man who believes more in human rights than many of the
other national leaders. He selected her from a very small court in
Georgia, where she practiced the law. She had graduated above her
classmates from one of the most prestigious law schools in the U.S.
but couldn’t find work in any major law firm because she was a woman.
So, she clearly understands the price that people must pay when they
are victims of prejudice, and I believe she brings this to her work
as judge.
Arleen
Rodríguez:
Many thanks for your words for our Round Table.
