[Ppnews] Leonard Weinglass re Cuban 5 ruling

[Political Prisoner News]

Periódico 26, Las Tunas, Cuba

Attorney Leonard Weinglass: "There are 40 pages 
of ideological prejudice in the new ruling from Atlanta"
BY ARLEEN RODRIGUEZ DERIVET

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of 
Appeals of Atlanta upheld Wednesday the guilty 
verdicts of the Cuban Five, prisoners in the 
United States since 1998. It also vacated the 
sentences of three of the men, ordering a new 
sentencing in Miami. The sentences of Rene 
Gonzalez (15 years) and Gerardo Hernandez (two 
life terms plus 15 years) were maintained. In the 
case of Hernandez, the panel voted 2-1. A 16-page 
[minority] opinion of Judge Phyllis Kravitch 
states that the government did not present 
sufficient evidence to prove Gerardo’s guilt in 
the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.

The cases of Ramon Labanino (life sentence plus 
18 years), Fernando Gonzalez (19 years) and 
Antonio Guerrero (life sentence plus 10 years) 
were sent to the Florida Court for re-sentencing. 
It will be Judge Joan Lenard who will announce a 
hearing to issue the new sentencing. Lenard was 
the presiding judge who, in 2001, issued the 
harsh sentences to the Cuban Five. The 99-page 
ruling of the Appeals Court of Atlanta, which 
explicitly favors the government position, was 
drafted in a politically charged language unusual 
for legal texts. It states that the defense 
arguments in their appeal "are meritless."

On Thursday June 5 an interview by Arleen 
Rodriguez with attorney Leonard Weinglass was 
broadcast on the Round Table program. Weinglass 
represents Antonio Guerrero and is a member of 
the Cuban Five defense team. A translation of the 
text in Spanish follows (Weinglass’ answers were 
originally in English and translated into Spanish):

Arleen Rodriguez.— Weinglass, help us understand. 
Give us a summary of the 99-page ruling from the Court of Appeals of Atlanta.

Leonard Weinglass.— What it means in brief is 
that the life sentences of two, Antonio and 
Ramon, were removed and there is a program for 
their re-sentencing in Miami before Judge Lenard. 
The sentence of Fernando is going to be reduced.

AR.— But Ramon and Antonio have different charges 
than Fernando. What does it mean that the three 
be returned to Miami and what can we expect?

LW.— When the Cuban Five were arrested in 1998, 
the Pentagon and the Justice Department issued a 
statement saying that the national security of 
the United States was not affected. Now, after 10 
years in prison, we have a statement from a high 
level court that there was no espionage and that 
no top secret information was obtained or 
transmitted. That was the court’s finding, but 
nonetheless they returned the cases for 
re-sentencing and we are not sure what the new 
sentence will be; but it won’t be, in this case, 
life imprisonment, and they could even return home.

AR.— Why isn’t Gerardo included in the revision?

LW.— All the lawyers coincide that Gerardo’s case 
was easier and could have been thrown out. 
However, even though the case is easy from a 
legal point of view, from a political viewpoint 
it’s the most difficult, because of the political 
climate that exists in Miami. The court didn’t 
have the nerve to drop a sentence for conspiracy 
to murder when four Miami residents were the victims.

AR.— Does the fact that the Court of Appeals of 
Atlanta decided to return the case of Ramon, 
Fernando and Antonio to Miami mean they were 
excessive in sentencing, which is evidence of 
poor conduct. Isn’t it absurd then that they 
return the case to the same judge that imposed the harsh sentences?

LW.— It’s unfortunate.

In this 99-page ruling, they find that Judge 
Lenard committed errors in sentencing Fernando; 
committed errors in sentencing Antonio; committed 
errors in sentencing Ramon; committed errors in 
the instructions to the jury about Gerardo and, 
according two of the three judges, committed 
errors in rejecting a change of venue.

Despite those six or seven serious errors, the 
court returns the case to Judge Lenard.

AR.— What legal recourse remains?

LW.— Yes, we still have options available. 
Firstly, we can immediately, on June 24, ask the 
three judges to reconsider their decision based 
on the errors they committed in their ruling, and we are going to do it.

If they don’t reconsider this reasoning then we 
have the right to go to the Supreme Court of the 
United States to reconsider all or some of the 
issues we have presented, including the venue, 
the misconduct of the prosecution, the 
insufficient evidence in the case of Gerardo and 
other matters that this court has ruled on, 
including the use of a secret procedure between 
the judge and prosecution against the Cuban Five 
and also having maintained secret evidence that 
could have been delivered to the defense.

AR.— This ruling comes at a time when the people 
of the United States are immersed in a 
presidential election campaign and perhaps are 
not paying attention to other matters, like the 
case of the Cuban Five or another, the possibly 
pardoning of Luis Posada Carriles, who is already 
free on the streets of Miami. I wonder if the 
defense team has taken into account the double 
standard of the US government in relation to 
terrorism, which is apparent in the handling of 
the Cuban Five case and the freeing of a 
confessed terrorist like Luis Posada Carriles. Do 
the lawyers take that into account in their appeals?

LW.— In reality, that contradiction, which is 
very clear in the facts you mention, is not 
available to us in the texts of the legal case. 
However, in the original ruling of the first 
panel that we appealed to, they signed a special 
footnote, in which they refer to Carriles and 
call him a terrorist. Unfortunately, in this 
99-page opinion there are no such references.

AR.— The ruling came on June 4, Gerardo’s 
birthday. The fact that the Appeals Court upheld 
the sentence of one of the weakest charges in the 
case, that of conspiracy to commit murder, and in 
general the charges against Gerardo, appears to 
be a deliberate act of cruelty against this young 
anti-terrorist fighter. How do you see it?

LW.— Perhaps this wasn’t an accident. People see 
it as an insensitive intent against a man who 
honorably served his country. However, when you 
read the entire ruling they issued, in particular 
the first 40 pages, it is very clear to us 
attorneys that there is an ideological prejudice 
in the writing. And the fact they issued the 
ruling on Gerardo’s birthday could be seen, as you suggest, as intentional.

AR.— What reasons could a lawyer like yourself 
give us so we can continue believing that there 
is a possibility that justice will triumph in the 
US legal system in the case of the Cuban Five?

LW.— Unfortunately, this case is one of those 
situations where I believe that the US government 
is using the justice system to achieve a foreign 
policy objective. That’s the difference with the 
case of Posada Carriles, between the case of Posada Carriles and this case.

Historically, when this has happened and a 
political prejudice is revealed, the US people 
feel a great sense of embarrassment in the laws 
and the trust they place in their legal system, in the courts.

AR.— How would you summarize in one sentence the ruling issued on June 4?

LW.— Gerardo should have been freed of all 
charges and the rest of the life sentences reversed as an absolute minimum.

So, we won a small part of the case at this 
moment, but the matter of the venue is still 
alive and we are going to present it again before 
the Supreme Court, and fortunately, we are going 
to begin the initial work so that the Cuban Five can return home.

We are prepared to continue the struggle and, 
with luck we will achieve it, like we did before, 
and like we are going to do and must do in the future.

We won the revocation of the life sentences, and 
that is a significant victory; but we are very 
disappointed that we didn’t win on the 
prosecution’s weakest case, and we should have won it.

AR.— Which is charge three?

LW.— Yes, charge three.

Any attorney studying the charge, including 
prosecutors, have concluded that a sentence 
should not have been issued on the base of the 
evidence presented. One of the judges wrote a 
16-page opinion and very clearly, and in a very 
strong way, said that Gerardo was innocent of 
those charges. That’s a strong statement and 
quite unusual for an 85-year-old judge who has 
been a federal appeals magistrate for nearly a quarter of a century.

That was a historic action by the judge, 
including on the charge of conspiracy to commit 
murder. Her position is just below the Supreme 
Court and she is one of the most recognized leaders of the US justice system.

AR.— Your talking about Judge Kravitch.

LW.— Yes, Kravitch.

She was appointed by [former US President] 
Carter, a man who believes more in human rights 
than most of the other national leaders. He 
choose her from a very small court in Georgia 
where she practiced law, despite having graduated 
at the top of her class at one of the most 
prestigious law schools in the United States. But 
she wasn’t working in any law firm because she 
was a woman. Therefore, she clearly understands 
the price that people have to pay when they are 
victims of prejudice, and I believe that she 
contributes this in her work as a judge.

AR.— Thank you for speaking with our Round Table.





Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080609/c260bc8f/attachment.htm>