erred in prohibiting them from
introducing the defense of necessity. We
affirm.
I. Factual Background
On May 18, 1999, Terry Lamar Walker, a
black inmate at USP-Marion, was stabbed
to death by two white inmates associated
with the Dirty White Boys prison gang and
its ally, the Aryan Brotherhood. Prison
officials promptly took steps to secure
the safety of its guards and inmates and
conducted a thorough "shakedown" at the
institution in an effort to locate
additional weapons and weapon-making
tools. During the shakedown USP-Marion
officials employed the use of x-ray and
digital examinations of individual
inmates in an attempt to discover any
internally concealed contraband.
On May 19, 1999, one day after the
murder, x-ray and digital examinations
revealed that five inmates had concealed
weapons, steel or plastic knives, in
their rectal cavities. Appellants Tokash
and Kolb were two of those five inmates.
One week later, on May 26, 1999, the same
search methods uncovered a steel knife
that appellant Usher had hidden in his
rectal cavity. On June 9, 1999, a grand
jury sitting in the Southern District of
Illinois charged Tokash, Kolb, and
Usher,/1 in separate indictments, with
one count of possessing weapons in a
federal prison contrary to 18 U.S.C. sec.
1791(a)(2). Prison officials later
discovered each of the appellants with
additional weapons and grand juries
returned superseding indictments adding
additional counts charging each of them
with multiple violations of sec.
1791(a)(2), which punishes an inmate who
"makes, possesses, or obtains, or
attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited
object," including any object that
"threatens the order, discipline, or
security of a prison, or the life,
health, or safety of an individual."/2
18 U.S.C. sec. 1791(a)(2) & (d).
In the three appellants' individual
cases, the government filed a pre-trial
motion in limine to preclude the
defendant from introducing evidence in
support of a defense of necessity or
other justification defense at trial,
unless he made a prima facie showing that
he satisfied the legal requirements to
raise such a defense. According to the
government, the defendants could
establish neither that they faced an
imminent threat nor that they had availed
themselves of all reasonable legal
alternatives. The appellants, all white
inmates, filed responses and offers of
proof in which they complained about the
manner in which USP-Marion officials
administered the prison, including prison
officials' refusal to maintain racially
segregated housing units, and about
previous racially motivated incidents of
violence at USP-Marion. Tokash further
proffered that other inmates at USP-
Marion would testify that "it was
generally believed by inmates that
appeals to the Prison Administration
regarding threats made and dangerous
persons would have been futile." The
defendants further filed motions for
subpoenas duces tecum in order to procure
Bureau of Prisons documents that they
speculated would help establish their
theory that racial tension so permeated
USP-Marion that they had no choice other
than to violate the law by arming
themselves. In addition, the defendants
sought deposition testimony from other
inmates in support of their allegations
regarding the racially charged atmosphere
at USP-Marion.
The trial judge, accepting the facts in
the offers of proof as true, agreed with
the government that the appellants
alleged only a generalized fear of attack
by some unknown or unspecified assailant
at some unknown time in the future, and
that such allegations were legally
insufficient to support a necessity or
other justification defense. The trial
judge further noted that the appellants
failed to avail themselves of available
legal alternatives prior to arming
themselves. Thus the trial judge granted
the government's motions in limine to
preclude evidence or argument regarding a
necessity or other justification defense.
After ruling in favor of the government
on its motions in limine, the trial judge
went on to deny the defendants' motions
for depositions and subpoenas duces
tecum, ruling that the information the
defendants sought was not relevant
because the defendants were precluded
from introducing evidence regarding a
necessity or duress defense.
2006-10-14 00:45:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by shirley e 7
·
6⤊
1⤋
The Deceased Feces. that's actual the call of a surprisingly stable underground positioned up-punk indie band. we could stomp around in rubbish bags draped in knick knacks and upload-ons from perpetually 21 and Charlotte Russe and all positioned on especially colored fanny packs.
2016-11-28 04:46:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋