Opinion
Case No. 2:03-CR-933 TS.
December 1, 2004
ORDER REGARDING DETENTION
This matter came before the Court for hearing on November 30, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. Defendants were present and represented by counsel as follows: Tracy Swena, Mary Corporon; Steve Swena, Lee Rasmussen appearing for Mike Jaenish; David Fink, Candice Johnson; Mike Main, Deirdre Gorman; Mark Snarr, Ben Hamilton; Lee Heyen, David Finlayson; Lance Vanderstappen, Lee Rasmussen; Jason Bates, Bel-Ami de Montreaux; Andrew Beck, Scott Williams; Dennis Judd, James Garrett; Jeff Schirado, Jack Morgan; and John McGee, Jon Williams. Counsel for the government was also present.
This matter is before the Court as a result of a new threat on the lives of two members of the prosecution team, both Assistant United States Attorneys. Defendants are before the Court on charges of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the Racketeering Influence Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Defendants are also charged with maiming/a violent crime in aid of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959. These charges carry possible life sentences.
The Soldiers of Aryan Culture ("SAC") gang originated in Utah within correctional institutions. It is alleged in the Indictment that the organization is highly structured and a close group with strong internal discipline and member restrictions, enforceable by physical injury and death. The Indictment sets out details of the organization and its functions, including commission of serious crimes. The fact that members of SAC were in prison, has not prevented them from allegedly committing or causing crimes inside prison, including assaults and other offenses. The prison security environment did not secure against commission of offenses on the inside and outside. Networking between SAC prisoners and others on the outside to commit offenses is a serious and alleged reality. The Indictment provides probable cause for these allegations.
Earlier in 2004 a prior threat on a prosecutor has resulted in charges being filed by way of Indictment against an individual outside of the prison. (See United States of America v. Bown, 2:04-CR-399 JTG.) As a result of this prior threat, all Defendants were brought before this Court on March 22, 2004. At that time, this Court notified the Defendants that the Court had been informed of threats that had been made against a member of the prosecution team. This Court put the Defendants on record and advised them that "this behavior will not be tolerated and is to cease immediately." The Court went on to state that Defendants were on notice that other consequences may follow if this type of behavior were to continue.
Approximately three weeks ago, this Court was again notified by federal authorities that a second threat had been received targeting two members of the prosecution team. This second threat is currently the subject of an ongoing investigation. As a result of this information, Defendants were again brought before the Court and at this time the Court imposed the following restrictions on all of the Defendants currently in custody:
1. No visits are to be allowed for the Defendants except for attorneys, currently representing each Defendant, investigators, and/or paralegals, who are members of the defense team. Each defense counsel is hereby ordered to provide a list of these individuals to the United States Marshal so that they can be on record. No other visitors will be allowed for the Defendants at this time.
2. No phone calls will be allowed for any of the Defendants except for legal purposes to attorneys or other representatives of the legal team.
3. Mail, both incoming and outgoing, will be read for threats, conspiracy plots, or other obstruction efforts. Legal mail from attorneys to Defendants will not be examined.
4. No communication between Defendants will be allowed either by mail, phone, visits, or any other means.
It is up to the U.S. Marshal and other custodians to make sure that these goals of detention are met.
The facts of this case require special controls to prevent communications to obstruct justice and harm prosecutors. These restrictions are to prevent obstructions and criminal actions by outside SAC members or sympathizers on direction by defendants, through sympathetic visitors.
IT IS SO ORDERED.