Hung Jury for Peace Activists, Ithaca NY

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report Thursday April 15, 2004 14:43 by Eoin Dubsky

St. Patrick's Day 4 free again (for now)

What follows is a summary of the St. Patrick 4 Trial, which started 4/6 in Ithaca, NY and ended on 4/13 at 9pm with the 12 person jury stating they were deadlocked after 20 hours of deliberation and the judge declaring a mistrial.

The defendants Daniel Burns, Peter De Mott, Clare Grady and Teresa Grady - felt it was critical to draw attention to the tragedy unfolding in Iraq at the time of their action (March 17, 2003) and feel that now it is more essential than ever to stop the war against Iraq and bring the troops home before any more deaths and injuries occur. In light of the horrors taking place this week in Iraq and the devastating loss of life, it is clear their action, and the actions of millions of others around the world, to oppose the war against Iraq, was essential.

The St. Patrick 4 were charged with felony criminal mischief for pouring their own blood in the Marine/Army Recruitment Office in Ithaca on March 17, 2003.

They stated they carefully poured their blood on the walls, door, flag and floor of the recruitment office as an emergency measure to alert potential recruits to the danger of military service and to expose the disinformation that recruiters provide the public about job training, adventure and money for college after military service.

Judge Sherman denied the defendants' request for expert witnesses, including respected author and professor Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General. They were prepared to testify regarding the legality of the defendants actions under International Law. The defendants were also denied testimony from Damacio Lopez of the International Depleted Uranium Study Team, who has testified at the World Court in The Hague, the UN in Geneva and New York, and at the UN Development Program in Iraq. Lopez was to testify about the hazards health effects of depleted uranium (DU) on U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens who live near the DU test site in New Mexico, such as himself.

All 4 defendants represented themselves with the assistance of attorney advisor's and each took the witness stand to explain their intent for their action. They were permitted to give personal background as to their religious beliefs, the history of non-violent civil resistance in the U.S. and its role in changing oppressive and violent policy, and the reasons why they poured their blood and knelt in prayer at the recruitment office two days before the onslaught of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq in 2003, which continues to devastate life and the environment in Iraq to this day.

All testified that they were raised Catholic and that the non-violent teachings of Jesus strongly influenced them, as did the teachings of the works of mercy, as opposed to the works of war.

Clare Grady testified regarding her eyewitness knowledge of the suffering in Iraq at the hands of the U.S. sanctions when she visited there with a Voices in the Wilderness Delegation in 1999. Clare spoke of her strong religious belief that there is never justification for killing. She spoke of her father's acquittal in the Camden 28 trial, in which he and 27 others were involved in destroying the draft files of men about to be drafted for the Vietnam War. Clare said that she was raised to oppose injustice, to oppose racism, war making and the injustices of poverty. She spoke of her work as kitchen coordinator for 15 years in the community kitchen in Ithaca, serving free meals 5 times per week.

Teresa Grady also testified about being raised to embrace all of God's children and to greatly appreciate the diversity of people while growing up in New York City. She said her religious convictions were a strong motivation for her to take her action. Teresa spoke as the parent of a teenage boy and how important it is to educate young people about the real impact of signing up for the military, the reality that the recruiters gloss over. She pointed to the numbers of people killed in Iraq during the time of the trial alone, and how that pointed to the desperate need for the prevention of this war.

Daniel Burns testified that as a parent of a small child, he felt that the loss of a child would be too great for anyone to bear, and that he was thinking very much of that when he took his action. He thought of the parents of soldiers and Iraqi citizens and how horrible it was for any of them to lose their children to war. The prosecutor said to Danny, "Why didn't you just bring your own flag to the recruitment station and pour your blood on it outside? That would have been fine." He stated that Rosa Parks didn't just stand outside the bus and hold a sign. She went inside the bus and took more serious action. Danny said he felt there was an emergency about to occur in Iraq and that our country is essentially "on fire", with the emergency continuing in Iraq and the tragedy continuing here as well in the form of U.S. military people still coming home dead, wounded and scarred. He felt his action was taken as an emergency measure, in conjunction with many others around the world who were also saying NOto this war.

Peter DeMott testified as a Marine and Army Veteran, who served in the war against Vietnam. He stated it was his duty under International Law and the Nuremberg Principles to take non-violent action to stop an illegal and immoral war undertaken by his country. He spoke of his sincere concern for the Iraqi people suffering under the U.S. sanction, invasion and occupation. He also spoke of great concern about the U.S. service people who are suffering in Iraq and elsewhere from the ravages of war, and especially about the toxic effects of depleted uranium (DU) on the troops in Iraq and the Iraqi people. Peter also spoke of the contamination of the air, soil and water for millions of years as a result of the U.S. dropping tons of DU in Iraq in the current war and the first Gulf War. At one point, the prosecutor asked him about the command to "Love Your Enemies", and he responded by saying he had no enemies.

On Saturday April 10, two days after Peter's testimony, Peter suffered a small sub-arachnoid hemorrhage of the brain and had to be hospitalized for 4 days. His condition was serious, however he is now home recuperating and in good spirits. The judge allowed the trial to go on as scheduled on 4/12, as was the wish of all the co-defendants including Peter, because all that was left was closing statements and the judges instructions to the jury, followed by jury deliberation. Peter was able to send a closing statement through his attorney adviser, Joani Brandon.

The jury deliberated for 20 hours. At one point a few hours before their final declaration of deadlock, the jury sent a question to the judge. It said, since the jury is supposed to consider what the defendants knew prior to their action, does their knowledge include their religious, political and moral beliefs? The judge stated yes, all the above DOES constitute their knowledge. The defendants maintained throughout the trial that they had a right and a duty to be in the recruitersoffice taking non-violent measures to stop recruitment for the imminent war, and they strongly felt they had reasonable belief that their action was right, justified and legal.

The jury also asked in their note, is it appropriate to speculate on the effect of our verdict on the further actions of the defendants or other people? The judge instructed them they were not to speculate on this.

Four hours later, the jury stated there was no possible way for them to have a unanimous verdict.

News reports have stated that the jury was divided into 2 groups, indicating it was more than 1 or 2 jurors holding out for one decision or another.

Judge Sherman gave the defendants until April 30 to file a motion for dismissal in the interest of justice.

The DA's office today indicated they were planning to re-try the case.