Cuban Five ruling confirms climate of fear in Miami
By
Teresa Gutierrez
Published Aug 18, 2005 9:41 PM
The Aug. 9 ruling by the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals in the case of the Cuban Five was as surprising as it was
groundbreaking.
The five are Antonio Guerrero, Ramón
Labañino, Gerardo Hernández, Fernando González and
René González. After monitoring the actions of right-wing Cuban
groups in Florida that have a history of terrorist acts against Cuba, they were
arrested in 1998 and charged with conspiracy to commit espionage and murder.
They were tried in the highly politically charged atmosphere of Miami.
The
new ruling, issued 16 months after their lawyers filed an appeal, was based on
the lower court’s denial of their motion for a change of venue, as well as
several other due process violations.
The convictions and sentences for
all Five were overturned by this decision. The three-judge panel determined
their trial had been unfair and unanimously ordered that any new trial not be
held in the Miami area.
In the 93-page decision, the court states:
“They [the five] appeal their convictions, sentences, and the denial of
their motion for new trial arguing … that the pervasive community
prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the
publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a
situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial
trial.
“We agree, and REVERSE their convictions and REMAND for a
retrial.”
While the struggle to free the Cuban Five is far from
over, the ruling is a historic decision that brings them one step closer to
home. One of the most conservative courts in the country delivered a favorable
ruling as a result of overwhelming evidence, as well as the international
struggle to expose the truth about the case.
Ruling on venue
is unprecedented
Leonard Weinglass, noted civil rights
attorney and the lawyer for Antonio Guerrero, said of the decision: “This
is really an historic opinion. Never before in the history of the U.S. has a
Federal Circuit of Appeals reversed a trial court’s finding with respect
to venue. This is a first. This is a remarkable decision that will be studied in
law schools and cited in future cases throughout the
country.”
Weinglass told the press that he believes the decision
will especially impact cases involving the rights of those accused in so-called
war on terror cases.
In the decision the judges cited over 100 incidents
showing that Miami was a hostile environment for the trial. The court determined
the trial was not fair because of “community prejudice, extensive
publicity and prosecutors’ inflammatory remarks.”
“The
perception that these groups could harm jurors that rendered a verdict
unfavorable to their views was palpable,” it stated, after describing how
evidence at trial disclosed “the clandestine activities of not only the
defendants, but also of the various Cuban exile groups and their paramilitary
camps that continue to operate in the Miami area.”
The attorneys for
the Five had been subject to harassment. Even Paul McKenna, the court-appointed
lawyer for Gerardo Hernández, was accused by Jose Basulto in the
courtroom of being a communist spy and an agent of the Cuban intelligence
service. Basulto was trained by the CIA for the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and
other terrorist activities against Cuba. He is a leader of Brothers to the
Rescue, an innocent-sounding name for a group that has provocatively flown its
planes into Cuban air space.
The court wrote: “Our review of the
evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an
appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because
the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate
venue considerations. ...
“The evidence submitted in support of the
motions for change of venue was massive,” the court
wrote.
Studies reveal atmosphere
of
intimidation
The decision cited a study conducted by Florida
International University Professor Gary Patrick Moran. The Moran study
illustrated the overwhelming anti-Cuba sentiment that exists in
Florida.
It showed that 69 percent of all respondents and 74 percent of
Latino respondents were prejudiced against persons “charged with engaging
in the activities named in the indictment.” Over one third said they would
be worried about “criticism by the community if they served on a jury that
reached a not-guilty verdict in a Cuban spy case.”
One potential
juror—David Cuevas—stated that he “would feel …
intimidated and maybe a little fearful for my own safety if I didn’t come
back with a verdict that was in agreement with what the Cuban community feels. I
would probably be a nervous wreck, if you want to know the honest
truth.”
Another potential juror, a banker in charge of housing
loans, was “concerned how … public opinion might affect [his]
ability to do his job.” Another stated that he believed that “Castro
is a communist dictator and I am opposed to communism so I would like to see him
gone and a democracy established in Cuba.”
In February of 2001, five
months after the trial had begun, a demonstration against the Five was held
outside the courthouse, adding to a tense climate.
The court noted that in
March, cameras were focused on the jurors as they left the building. Jurors
reported they felt pressure and were concerned they were being filmed “all
the way to their cars and [that] their license plates had been
filmed.”
The decision cites another study that supported the motion
for a new trial. Con ducted by a legal psychologist, it showed that “49.7
percent of the local Cuban population strongly favored direct United States
military action to overthrow the Castro regime.” Ominously, 26 percent of
the local non-Cuban population and 8.1 percent of the national population
surveyed favored this action.
Another study conducted by Dr. Lis andro
Perez of Florida International Uni versity concluded that “the possibility
of selecting 12 citizens of Miami-Dade County who can be impartial in a case
involving acknowledged agents of the Cuban government is virtually
zero….”
Media contaminated the jury
The role of
the media in contributing to an unfair trial was well documented. The media
often would request names of jurors.
Copies of the Miami Herald covering
the case were found in the jury assembly room.
The ruling cites the
district judge in the case, Joan Lenard, who said she was “increasingly
concerned” that various persons connected with the case were not following
her order to refrain from giving out information or opinions, based on the
“parade of articles appearing in the media….”
As the
case continued, media attention grew. Anti-Cuba elements held a press conference
outside the courthouse during a lunch break.
The decision points out that
much of this case took place during the highly publicized struggle to get the
Cuban right-wing in Miami to release Elián Gonzalez so he could be
returned to his father in Cuba. Elián is the 6-year-old boy who was found
alone, clinging to an inner tube, in the Straits of Florida after his mother had
died at sea trying to reach the mainland on a makeshift raft.
It also
points out other discrepancies during the trial, such as a lack of seating for
the families of the Five, while there was ample seating for right wingers, who
were put directly behind the prosecution. This added to the partisan and tense
climate in the courtroom.
In July and August several of the Five had again
appealed for a new trial and a change of venue. They pointed out that, after a
seven-month and very complex trial, the jury had failed to ask questions and
instead issued a quick verdict.
What next for the Cuban
Five?
The next step in the case of the Five is to wait for the
response of the U.S. Attorney in Miami, who can appeal the decision. Bail could
be set or denied. The court has determined that the Five, who have been
scattered in prisons across the country, can finally come together in Miami to
discuss their case among themselves and with their lawyers. But the prosecutor
may stall all this.
The Cuban government has rightly asked that the Five
be sent back to Cuba immediately, since they have been determined to be
innocent.
The work to free the Five must not only continue, it must
intensify. The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five is encouraging
supporters to contact members of Congress to help obtain visas so their families
can visit them at this very critical time. Some family members have been denied
visas for over seven years. This is inhumane and a violation of international
law. Other educational and political work is necessary.
Why was this
ruling made? “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of
due process,” states the decision.
It says that while the state
“may prosecute with earnestness and vigor” and “strike hard
blows,” it is not at liberty to “strike foul ones.”
Yet
in case after case in courts throughout this country, innocent people are rushed
to conviction after obviously biased trials.
One could argue that
“foul blows” are the norm, not the exception.
So why did this
court rule in favor of the Five? Why did it do such a thorough job of reviewing
the evidence in an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of
venue?
What everyone on both sides will be weighing is how much this
ruling may indicate a shift in the political situation with regard to U.S.-Cuba
relations. Has the political influence of the right wing in southern Florida
come down a notch? They are closely associated with the Bush dynasty. But are
they being seen as a liability by other powerful capitalist interests?
After 45 years of trying and failing to destroy the Cuban Revolution,
imperialism’s goal remains the same but its tactics may need to
change.
A few months ago who would have thought that avowed terrorist Luis
Posada Carriles would be held in custody by the Bush administration—even
if only on immigration charges?
The political and legal work done by the
Five themselves, their attorneys and all their many supporters, as well as the
strenuous support for them from the Cuban government and people, has had a big
impact internationally.
On May 27, the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detentions of the UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution concluding that
their imprisonment and treatment was arbitrary and incompatible with
international standards; it called on the U.S. government to rectify the
situation.
The partial victory in the case of the Cuban Five should be
used to open up a wider struggle in solidarity with Cuba.
Whatever the
shift in climate, it is up to the solidarity movement in this country and around
the world to create the conditions that will free the Cuban Five, end the U.S.
blockade of Cuba and lift the travel ban. Extraditing Luis Posada Carriles to
Venezuela for his crimes against Latin Americans, including his role in the
mid-air bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner in 1976, is also in order.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE