FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 1, 2004

10 TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HEARS ORAL ARGUMENTS.
ATTORNEYS ARGUE THREE DOMINICAN SISTERS WERE UNFAIRLY CONVICTED OF SABOTAGE.

 Background: On October 6, 2002 , Jackie Hudson , Ardeth Platte and Carol Gilbert went to a Minuteman III Missile site near Greeley Colorado to non-violently and symbolically inspect, expose and disarm the illegal and immoral weapon of mass destruction. The Dominican Sisters were charged and convicted of two felonies, sabotage and destruction of property for lowering 32 feet of perimeter fence and marking the missile silo cover with crosses in blood.

 Today in the 10 th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Denver , Colorado , Judges Anderson, Hartz, and Tymkowitz heard oral arguments in the appeal of the Sisters' sabotage conviction.

Susan Tyburski , Clifford Barnard and Scott Poland attorneys for the defendants, effectively and succinctly summarized the Sisters' arguments in their allotted total of 15 minutes. The three issues the Sisters addressed in this appeal included: (1) lack of evidence for a sabotage conviction; (2) overbroad application of the definition of national defense; and (3) failure to provide a good-faith instruction to the jury.

Susan Tyburski , representing Carol Gilbert , initiated the defense presentation with a Chinese proverb: Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your friend's forehead.  Tyburski argued for a dismissal of the sabotage conviction. The prosecution failed to present any evidence that the women had the specific intent to interfere with the defense of the United States , a necessary element of sabotage.

Clifford Barnard , for Jackie Hudson , requested retrial or re-sentencing because the Sisters were denied due process. Barnard made it clear that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury with an overbroad definition of national defense. No one would anticipate that lowering 32 feet of perimeter fence would interfere with the Minuteman III.

Scott Poland , representing Ardeth Platte, argued that the jury should have been given a good-faith instruction so as to have adequate information and a tool with which to evaluate the prosecution's charges and the Sister's intent.

In the prosecution's turn, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Murphy, argued that their intent to interfere with the national defense was inferred from the fact that they came to the silo site to make a statement about the “illegality and immorality” of nuclear weapons.  In response to a question by Judge Tymkovitz , Murphy claimed that they could not possibly hold the belief that war crimes are part of US law and apply to threat or use of nuclear weapons.

The judges' questions were centered around the overly broad definition of sabotage and overzealous prosecution. Judge Anderson said,  “You could have charged them with trespass, charged them with the cost of the fence and let them go.”  The government answered that the U.S. attorney did have that choice but believed that the Sister's had the intent to interfere with national defense.  Judge Hartz questioned the government whether the fact that this was a protest case is what made it sabotage and whether only damage done in a protest case can rise to the level of sabotage. 

 The 10 th Circuit is expected to issue a decision within two or three months.

 For more information contact:

Susan Crane 443 804 6938;
Sue Ablao 360 649 2197;
Anabel Dwyer 231 420 1824.