Prosecutors file appeal of judge's order to release jailed militia members
DETROIT -- Federal prosecutors said Wednesday they're appealing the pending release of nine jailed Michigan militia members charged with wanting to overthrow the government, warning that freeing the defendants could endanger the public.
The U.S. attorney's office met a deadline to declare whether it would appeal a judge's order that releases the eight men and one woman until trial. Prosecutors also urged U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts to extend her order that stops the defendants from going home while the appeal is pending.
"If the defendants were to flee or to cause even a fraction of the harm they have repeatedly and fervently spoken of and planned for, no ruling by the (appeals court) could undo that damage," Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet wrote.
The members of the southern Michigan militia, called Hutaree, are charged with conspiracy to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the government and the attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. Among those charged in Michael Meeks of Bridgewater Township in southwestern Washtenaw County.
Authorities have said the group planned to kill a police officer and then bomb a subsequent funeral.
Prosecutors claim the suspects are too dangerous to be released from jail. But Roberts on Monday ruled they could go home with many restrictions. One of the conditions imposed on Hutaree leader David Stone, who is charged in the indictment, is that he cannot communicate with militia member Mark Koernke of the Dexter area.
Roberts suspended her decision to give the government time to consider an appeal.
The judge now must decide whether the suspects should be released or whether they should continue to be detained pending the outcome of the appeal. There was no indication when she would rule.
Defense attorney Michael Rataj said his client, 44-year-old Tina Stone of Clayton, Mich., is "anxious for a good shower and normal food" after nearly six weeks in jail.
An undercover agent infiltrated the group and secretly recorded some members talking about killing police and fearing a "New World Order." Defense attorneys have said it was nothing more than hateful talk.
Roberts said it was "offensive and hate-filled speech" but it did not signal a conspiracy to levy war against the government.
It's rare for a federal appeals court to even be asked to review a ruling on pretrial detention. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati could decline to hear the government's appeal.
"Judge Roberts did her homework and doesn't want to be reversed. That's why her ruling is 36 pages long," said Lloyd Meyer of Chicago, a former terrorism prosecutor. "Is this a ruling that no reasonable judge could issue? Did the judge abuse her discretion? Those are the questions the appellate court will need to answer."
AnnArbor.com crime reporter Lee Higgins contributed to this report.
Comments
Veritas
Wed, May 5, 2010 : 7:12 p.m.
"It's rare for a federal appeals court to even be asked to review a ruling on pretrial detention. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati could decline to hear the government's appeal." Just how rare is it? How much of a precedent would this be if they rule in against Judge Roberts' decision to release the defendants? or even to affirm it? Statistically how likely is it they would even agree to hear the U.S. attorney's appeal at all? They really should not even agree to hear the appeal. The prosecution has nothing but a lot of scary stories with nothing to substantiate them except a tape of Stone practicing for a speech about current events and, basically, the need for change: "Now it's time to strike and take our nation back so that we may be free again from tyranny." Sounds like politics 101 to me, perhaps derivative of Jefferson. People from the U.S. who are in powerful international organizations talk about the "new world order" and "world governence" all the time. Who are the ones really guilty of sedition against the U.S. federal government as it is spelled out in the Constitution? It's unlikely the court of appeals will even hear this. At least, they shouldn't.