Judge acquits 5 Hutaree militia members of all charges; 2 face only weapons counts

In a sharp rebuke, a federal judge today acquitted seven members of a Lenawee County militia group of plotting to overthrow the U.S. government with weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said federal prosecutors failed in five weeks of trial to prove that the Hutaree had a specific plan to kill a police officer and attack law enforcement personnel who showed up for the funeral.

While the testimony showed that Hutaree leader David Stone Jr. “may have wanted to engage in a war with the federal government ... it is totally devoid of any agreement to do so between Stone and the other defendants,” Roberts said in a 28-page decision.

“This plan is utterly short on specifics,” Robert said, adding that, “it is a stretch to infer that other members of the Hutaree knew of this plan, and agreed to further it.”

The decision leaves federal prosecutors with what legal experts described as a “run of the mill” illegal firearms case against Stone, 47, of Clayton, and his two sons, David Stone Jr., 22, of Adrian, and Joshua Stone, 24, of Clayton. Stone Sr. and Joshua Stone are charged with possession of a machine gun. All three are charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. The charges carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison.

Roberts’ decision resulted in total acquittals for four other defendants: Tina Stone, 46, the wife of David Stone Sr.; Michael Meeks, 42, of Manchester; Thomas Piatek, 48, of Whiting, and Christopher Sickles, 29, of Sandusky, Ohio.

Roberts acquitted all of the defendants of the most serious charges: seditious conspiracy, which carried a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. Because prosecutors failed to prove their case on those charges, Roberts said she also was required to acquit the defendants on five other counts: demonstrating the use of explosives and carrying and possessing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, which carry a maximum penalty of give [sic] years in prison.

Legal experts said prosecutors can’t appeal Roberts’ decision, which, in effect, is the same as a jury acquittal.

“She stepped in and took the role of a jury,” said Wayne State University law professor Peter Henning, a former federal prosecutor. “It’s as if the jury acquitted them and there can be no appeal of a jury acquittal.”

Henning said an appeal would have been possible had Roberts acquitted them before or after trial.

Henning said it will be interesting to see if the Michigan Attorney General’s Office or Lenawee County prosecutor decide to charge David Stone Jr. and Joshua Stone with state charges of conspiring to kill a police officer.

Henning predicted that Roberts’ decision won’t discourage the government from investigating and prosecuting such cases in the future. “What may be more difficult will be making the call about when to intervene with criminal charges,” Henning said. “The move to break up this group was not improper.”

N.C. Deday LaRene, a prominent Detroit criminal defense attorney who won the acquittal of the late Michigan Ku Klux Klan leader Robert Miles in a federal seditious conspiracy case in Arkansas in 1988, said he wasn’t surprised by Roberts’decision.

“It’s a good thing,” he said. “It’s supposed to be hard for prosecutors to prove seditious conspiracy. They’re trying to punish free speech, so it’s necessary to impose a significant limitation on the government’s ability to do that.”

“We’re just grateful to Judge Roberts for having the courage to do the right thing .l.l. very few judges have that kind of courage,” said attorney Michael Rataj, who is representing Tina Stone.

“There was no case. There was no conspiracy,” Rataj argued, further claiming the case was the result of overzealous federal agents.

In the 28-page decision, Roberts wrote: "The evidence is not sufficient for a rational factfinder to find that defendants came to a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the authority of the government of the United States as charged in the indictment."

She said prosecutors shifted positions since the defendants were indicted. She said the indictment charges a specific plan to overthrow the United States government. She said prosecutors now argue that there was a general plan to engage in violence to provoke a response from law enforcement.

“The prosecution is not free to roam at large - to shift its theory of criminality so as to take advantage of each passing vicissitude of the trial,” Roberts said. “If the government now admits that the plan alleged in Count 1 of the indictment (seditious conspiracy) did not exist, then defendants must be acquitted.”

She continued: “The inescapable conclusion of such a tactic is that the government recognizes that its proofs at trial failed to establish the plan described in the indictment, so it is attempting to formulate an alternative theory of criminal liability…”

Gina Balaya, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office, said the prosecutor’s office is going to withhold any comment until the trial is over.

In court documents filed last week, prosecutors defended the charges, saying they had proof that a violent plan was in the works, and that the government stopped it before it took effect.

“That there was no specific date, place, or target for this conflict – or that it was not certain whether the Hutaree intended to initiate the conflict or simply to engage in it once initiated by other forces is of no moment,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sheldon Light and Christopher Graveline wrote. “The evidence supports the conclusion that there was a plan, an agreement, among these defendants and others to join in opposing by force the Government of the United States when the time came.”

Today’s acquittal comes just days after the government rested its case before the jury by videos of bomb explosions.

Those acquitted faced up to life in prison.

Attorney Art Weiss, who represented Thomas Piatek, 48, of Whiting Ind., said he was “ecstatic” after learning about the acquittals.

“It’s ironic that today marks exactly two years that Mr. Piatek has been incarcerated,” said Weiss, who has long argued that his client was wrongfully locked up pending trial. “I don’t know if he will ever get back the two years that were taken from him.”

Weiss also said that Roberts’ ruling proved a point that the defense had argued all along: The defendants were merely engaged in tough talking, which is covered by Free Speech rights, and that there was never any real plan to harm anyone.

“ Some of the defendants did say things that perhaps they shouldn’t have said .. but they had a right to say it,” Weiss told the Free Press today, saying “it’s unfortunate that people are getting indicted” for speaking their minds. “It’s the thought police. The government should not be so sensitive that they take away First Amendment freedoms simply because someone says something they don’t’ like.”

continued at link...