|
The Cuban Five, who are generally viewed as heroes in Cuba, were gathering
information on U.S.-based groups planning terrorist actions against
Cuba. In 2001, they were convicted in federal court in Miami of acting
as unregistered foreign agents, conspiracy to commit espionage, and
other charges.
One of the Five, Gerardo Hernandez, was convicted of conspiracy to
commit murder in the deaths of four pilots from the anti-Cuban group
Brothers to the Rescue, who were shot down by Cuban jets in 1996.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit overturned the convictions in
2005, saying there should have been a change of venue. But the full
court reversed that decision, 10-2.
The following interview is reprinted from the June 7 English-language
edition of the Cuban newspaper Granma.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals of Atlanta
upheld Wednesday [June 4] 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 Labañino (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 U.S. 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 U.S. legal system in the case of the Cuban Five?
LW: Unfortunately, this case is one of those situations where I
believe that the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. justice
system.
AR: You’re talking about Judge Kravitch.
LW: Yes, Kravitch. She was appointed by [former U.S. 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.
|