NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO FREE THE CUBAN FIVE
Comité Nacional por la Libertad de los Cinco Cubanos

HOME  •  News Updates  •  Calendar  •  Resources  •  Store/Donations  •  Contact Us  •  HOME
Portada  •  Noticias  •  Calendario  •  Recursos  •  Tienda/Donaciones  •  Contáctenos  •  Portada

 
 

Press Conference on the Appeals Court Decision

Audio and Transcript

June 5, 2008
Special to www.freethefive.org

Speakers at Press Conference:

  • Richard Klugh, Attorney for Fernando González (aka Ruben Campa), and Deputy Chief of Appeals for the Federal Public Defender's Office in Miami
  • Paul McKenna, Attorney for Gerardo Hernández
  • Marjorie Cohn, President, National Lawyers Guild
  • Andrés Gómez and Gloria La Riva, coordinators, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five

Part 1 (main press conference):

Part 2 (question and anwer section):

Transcript:

La Riva: We are going to begin the press conference now for the attorneys of the Cuban Five to speak to the press in response to yesterday's 11th Circuit Court decision on the case of the Cuban Five. We will have speakers Richard Klugh, who is the attorney for Fernando González and
the Deputy Chief of Appeals for the Federal Public Defender's Office in Miami. We will have Paul McKenna, who is the attorney for Gerardo Hernández, Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild, and Andrés Gómez and myself who are coordinators of the
National Committee to Free the Cuban Five. We will also give information on the demonstrations taking place in the United States, Canada, and many other countries this week.

We want to emphasize first that the Cuban Five should never have been arrested. They were saving lives. They were peacefully opposing terrorism, and we are going to continue until they are free.

We will begin now with Richard Klugh, who is the attorney for Fernando González.

Klugh: Good afternoon. Mr. González is identified as Ruben Campa in the decision, the decision is titled United States vs. Campa. The court, two years after the en banc court, in a divided opinion, affirmed the District Court's rulings regarding the venue in Miami for the trial, has issued a new opinion, a new decision, this is the third decision in the case. In this decision the court has vacated the sentences of three of the defendants, two of the defendants who had life sentences and a third defendant, my client, who has a sentence of 19 years. The court affirmed the convictions of the defendants, however, with regard to the most prominent charge in the indictment, that accusing Gerardo Hernández of complicity in what is called the Brother to the Rescue shootdown, the court was sharply divided in its opinion yesterday.

In a lengthy dissent, Judge Kravitch concluded that there were, for several reasons, insufficient evidence, both factually and legally, to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. The deciding vote on the court, Judge Birch, concluded that the issue presented a very close question, and was one that he acknowledged that what the defense had said was significant. The case basically came down to three major categories of issues raised by the defendants. One was that the trial process was unfair, given the governmental actions in setting up the venue for the case in Miami, and in engaging in arguments and presentation of evidence that was unduly prejudicial. The second category was that the sentencing result was excessive, with three of the defendants having received life sentences. And the third category was that the evidence with regard to the most serious offenses was insufficient. And even though the court did not reverse the the conspiracy convictions, the court did, in reversing the life sentences of two of the defendants, hold that they had in effect not done the severe damage would have called for such a life sentence, and in remanding to the District Court, directed that the court consider the defendants' arguments that they should in fact not only not receive the guideline sentence, which would be substantially lower than what they presently have, but that the court should also consider a downward departure for offenses involving no serious harm to the United States.

And so that is where we stand right now. After seven years of the appellate process, this is the first resolution of all of the appellate claims. Now that we have the first resolution, we are considering requesting review by the full 11th Circuit of these issues, and we are further continuing to prepare for the possibility of seeking relief in the United States Supreme Court, as two of the judges in this three-judge panel have strongly urged. Indeed, in one of the three opinions in yesterday's decision, the presiding judge reiterated his strong belief not only that the conviction with regard to the shootdown was in question, but that the issues relating to the trial process are so substantial and so important that the United States Supreme Court should hear them. And so that is where we stand right now, and I defer to the other speakers.

Klugh: Buenas tardes. El señor González es identificado como Rubén Campa en la decisión; la decisión se titula los Estados Unidos vs Campa. La corte—dos años después de que la corte en banc, en una opinión dividida, afirmó las decisiones de la Corte del Distrito en cuanto a la sede de Miami para el juicio—ha emitido una nueva opinión, una nueva decisión. Esta es la tercera decisión en el caso. En esta decisión la Corte ha desechado las sentencias de tres de los acusados, dos de ellos sentenciados a cadena perpetua, y un tercer acusado, mi cliente, quien tiene una sentencia de 19 años. Sin embargo, la corte ratificó las condenas de los acusados con respecto al cargo más destacado en la acusación, que acusa a Gerardo Hernández de complicidad en lo que es llamado el derribo del avión de Hermanos al Rescate, la corte tuvo ayer una opinión completamente dividida.

La jueza Kravitch, en una extensa opinión de la minoría, concluyó que, por varias razones, no existía suficiente evidencia, tanto desde el punto de vista de los hechos, como legalmente, para sustentar una condena por conspiración para cometer asesinato. El voto decisivo en la Corte, el juez Birch, concluyó que el asunto presentaba un tema muy estrecho, y era que él reconocía que lo que la defensa había expresado era significativo. El caso, básicamente, cayó en tres categorías importantes de los temas planteados por los acusados. Uno fue que el proceso del juicio fue injusto, dadas las acciones del gobierno para ubicar la sede del caso en Miami, y para hacer atractivos los argumentos y la presentación de la evidencia, lo cual fue extremadamente perjudicial. La segunda categoría fue que la sentencia fue excesiva, pues tres de los acusados recibieron sentencias de cadena perpetua. Y la tercera categoría fue que la evidencia referida a los delitos más graves fue insuficiente. Y aunque la corte no anuló las condenas por conspiración, la Corte, anulando las cadenas perpetuas de dos de los acusados, sostuvo que ellos en efecto no habían incurrido en daños severos que hubieran demandado tales cadenas perpetuas. La Corte, al devolver los dos casos a la Corte del Distrito, dio instrucciones que la Corte considere los argumentos de los acusados que ellos de hecho no solo no deberían recibir las sentencias requeridas según la guia federal (guideline), las cuales serían sustancialmente más cortas que las que tienen actualmente, sino que la corte debiera también considerar un cambio descendente para los delitos no dañosos a los Estados Unidos.

Y bueno, en este punto nos encontramos ahora. Después de siete años del proceso de apelaciones, esta es la primera decisión de todas las reclamaciones presentadas. Ahora que tenemos la primera decisión, estamos considerando solicitar una revisión de estos aspectos por parte del 11no. Circuito completo y continuamos además la preparación para la posibilidad de encontrar un apoyo en la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, ya que dos de los jueces del panel de tres han presionado fuertemente. Ciertamente, en una de las tres opiniones de la decisión de ayer, el juez que presidió la corte reiteró su convicción, no solo en cuanto a que la condena referente al derribo del avión estaba en duda, sino que los temas relativos al proceso del juicio eran tan sustanciales y tan importantes que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos debía oírlos. Y así, es aquí donde nos encontramos actualmente, y paso la palabra a otros oradores.

La Riva: Thank you Richard. We will now hear from Paul McKenna, who is the attorney for Gerardo Hernández.

"I will tell you, the fight is definitely not over. The fight is far from over"

Paul McKenna, Attorney for Gerardo Hernández

McKenna: I'd be lying if I didn't say I was very disappointed by the opinion that I read yesterday by the Court of Appeals, but I'd also be lying if I didn't say that I still have a lot of hope, and I still have a lot of expectations in this case that we can do better. The dissent that was written by Judge Kravitch was, I thought, a very strong dissent. She came out and, as Richard said, stated that she didn't believe that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the murder conspiracy conviction, and the way that her opinion was written, it was almost as though she followed all the evidence that was presented by the defense, all the incursions by Mr. Basulto into Cuba, all the events that led up to the shootdown. And she put it in a full context, which wasn't done in the majority opinion. And I was grateful for that, and was very grateful for Judge Kravitch's very clear dissent. I think there is a legal issue in the conspiracy to commit murder charge that is very complex, and may well require an en banc review. The majority court, and this is sort of complex legal stuff, the majority court believed that the government did not have to prove that Hernández conspired to shoot aircraft down in international waters. And Judge Kravitch found that they did.

Now Judge Kravitch's opinion is the same as the majority's in some respects, but it is very different in other respects. Just to sort of simplify it, Judge Kravitch looked at the statute which requires that there be an unlawful act for there to be any basis for a murder conspiracy conviction, and she found that what was happening in this case, Cuba trying to enforce its own borders and its own sovereignty, what they were doing, what Hernández believed they were doing, was not an unlawful act. And that's what I tried to present as evidence at our jury trial, and I was very encouraged by Judge Kravitch's opinion, the way she wrote it, the way she followed all the evidence, in almost the exact manner that I had presented it.

Now the key to this opinion on the murder conspiracy was Judge Birch. And Judge Birch, as Richard Klugh mentioned, stated that it was a very close issue. And I have to tell you that when you know that you are so close, and then you don't get there, that's very disappointing after seven years, and ten years actually, of working on this case on behalf of Gerardo. But I will tell you, the fight is definitely not over. The fight is far from over, and this may go on for years to come. Judge Birch, in his opinion, suggested that the Supreme Court of the United States review this case, because Judge Birch, even though he upheld the conviction, stated that he still believes the trial that all of these five men had was flawed, and it requires a reversal based on the fact that we had a poor venue for this case, which was Miami. We could have had a better venue by just going an hour outside of Miami, or 45 minutes outside of Miami. So I am disappointed, but I'm also ready to keep fighting. No one is going to give up. That's just sort of the mantra right now, it's "don't give up." And we're not going to give up. Thank you.

McKenna: Estaría mintiendo si no digo que estoy muy decepcionado por la opinión de la Corte de Apelaciones que leí ayer, pero también estaría mintiendo si no digo que todavía tengo muchas esperanzas, y que todavía tengo muchas expectativas en este caso en cuanto a que podemos obtener mejores resultados. La opinión de la minoría escrita por la jueza Kravitch fue, así yo lo pienso, una opinión de desacuerdo muy fuerte. Ella salió y, como dijo Richard, declaró que no creía que hubo suficiente evidencia para sustentar la condena por conspiración para cometer asesinato, y en la forma en que fue escrita su opinión, fue casi como si ella siguió toda la evidencia que fue presentada por la defensa, todas las incursiones hechas por el Sr. Basulto a Cuba, todos los eventos que llevaron al derribo de los aviones. Y ella lo plantea en un contexto completo, lo cual no fue hecho en la opinión mayoritaria. Y me sentí agradecido por esto y también por la clarísima opinión de la minoría de la jueza Kravitch. Yo pienso que hay una cuestión legal en el cargo de conspiración para cometer asesinato que es muy compleja, y pudiera muy bien requerir una revisión en banc. La corte mayoritaria, y esto es algo legalmente muy complejo, la corte mayoritaria creyó que el gobierno no tenía que probar que Hernández conspiró para derribar el avión en aguas internacionales. Y la jueza Kravitch consideró que sí debían hacerlo.

Ahora la opinión de la jueza Kravitch es la misma que la de la mayoría en algunos aspectos. Pero es muy diferente en otros. Solamente para tratar de simplificarlo, la jueza Kravitch consideró el estatuto que requiere que exista un acto ilegal para que exista alguna base para la condena por conspiración para cometer asesinato, y ella encontró que lo que había sucedido en este caso, Cuba tratando de hacer respetar sus propias fronteras y su propia soberanía, lo que ellos estaban haciendo, lo que Hernández creyó que ellos estaban haciendo, no era un acto ilegal. Y esto fue lo que yo traté de presentar como evidencia a nuestro jurado, y yo me sentí muy animado por la opinión de la jueza Kravitch, por la forma que ella la escribió, por la forma en que ella siguió toda la evidencia, casi en la misma manera en que yo la presenté.

Ahora la clave para esta opinion acerca de la conspiración para cometer asesinato fue el juez Birch. Y el juez Birch, como mencionó Richard Klugh, declaró que este era un asunto muy cerrado. Y yo tengo que decirles que cuando usted sabe que usted está tan cerca, y después usted no llega allí, eso es muy decepcionante al cabo de siete años, y de diez años realmente, de trabajar en este caso representando a Gerardo. Pero yo les diré que la lucha no ha llegado a su final. La lucha será a partir de ahora y esto puede prolongarse varios años para llegar. El juez Birch, en su opinión, sugirió que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos revise este caso, porque el juez Birch, aunque apoyó la condena, declaró que él todavía cree que el juicio que estos cinco hombres tuvieron fue fallido, y que requiere una reversión basada en el hecho de que nosotros tuvimos una sede mediocre para este caso, que fue en Miami. Podíamos haber tenido una sede mejor solamente trasladándonos a un lugar a una hora, o a 45 minutos fuera de Miami. Entonces, yo estoy decepcionado, pero también estoy listo para continuar luchando. Nadie va a abandonar esta lucha. Ahora mismo lo que tenemos es una especie de MANTRA, que es "no abandonamos". Y nosotros no nos disponemos a abandonar. Gracias.

 

 

La Riva: Thank you very much, Paul. We will now hear from Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild.

Cohn: I agree with the comments that have been made, and I think that it's very significant that in the one-page concurrence of Judge Birch, who said that it was such a close case on the sufficiency of the evidence of the conspiracy to commit murder, he actually would have reversed that except for the standards of review that he was bound to follow. He is the one who dissented in the change of venue case, and change of venue means that you move a case out of an area because the defendant wouldn't be able to get a fair trial. And what Judge Birch said, when he suggested in his concurrence here that the petition be made for certiori to the Supreme Court, to decide this change of venue issue, he said, and this is what he wrote: "The defendants were subjected to such a degree of harm based on pervasive community prejudice, that their convictions should have been reversed." And this is really significant, because during the trial, the Bush Administration paid journalists to write unfavorable stories about Cuba, and anti-Cuban extremists tried to intimidate jurors, and prospective jurors admitted that they would be afraid to return not guilty verdicts against the Cuban Five. And anti-Cuban sentiment has tainted all possibility of a fair trial for these five men since their original arrest and confinement.

"The affirmance of the conviction and sentence on the conspiracy to commit murder is outrageous."

Marjorie Cohn, President, National Lawyers Guild

So I think that while we really need to dissect and analyze the legal issues here, and I believe that this was a severe blow, although three of the sentences were reversed and remanded back to the District Court because they were excessive, two of them because there was no top secret information that was gathered or transmitted, and the other who was shown not to be a manager or supervisor, so they will be resentenced, and that is a small victory, it's actually a great victory, but certainly the affirmance of the conviction and sentence on the conspiracy to commit murder is outrageous. And keep in mind that prosecutors frequently charge conspiracy in political cases because they can actually throw a very wide net, and it gets very mushy, and they don't really have to prove exactly what was agreed to, or what acts were committed. They do need to, under the law, but oftentimes the jury is confused about this, and you can get the same sentence for conspiracy that you can for the actual crime.

So I think it's important to keep in mind that while we analyze these legal issues, we shouldn't forget that the political context, which is a nearly 50-year policy of the U.S. government to isolate and punish the Cuban people because our government doesn't like their government, and in fact, why were these five men in the United States? They weren't armed, they didn't have classified information, they were there to gather information about terrorist acts being planned against Cuba. And there have been a number of terrorist acts. There was the first in-air bombing on a commercial airline was done in 1976, a Cubana Airliner which killed 73 people. And in fact there are people who are walking free in Miami who have admitted responsibility for that, and yet the U.S. government refuses to prosecute them. And yet these five Cuban men, who come into the United States unarmed, don't get any classified information, and they are convicted and sentenced, many of them, to life sentences. So I think that we need to keep the political context in mind while we analyze the legal arguments in this case.

La Riva: Thank you Marjorie. We'll now hear from Andrés Gómez from Miami and the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five and the Alianza Martiana.

"We have been subjected here in Miami to close to 200 terrorist acts in the past 40-some years. 70 others have been committed in the New York-New Jersey area, plus almost 30 in Puerto Rico...[The Cuban Five] were here in order to try to stop these acts from continuing to happen. The United States is a partner in these crimes, and that is why it acted against these men."

Andrés Gómez, coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five and Alianza Martiana

Gómez: Good afternoon. I represent a number of Cuban-American organizations, six of them, that agree with the fact that these five men are innocent. That these five men were in the United States in order to protect the Cuban people from terrorist acts being planned in the United States with the full knowledge of the United States Government. I am encouraged by the legal analysis that both Mr. McKenna and Mr. Klugh gave, and I couldn't agree more with Marjorie in her statement that this is, above all, a political case. We have been subjected here in Miami to close to 200 terrorist acts in the past 40-some years. 70 others have been committed in the New York-New Jersey area, plus almost 30 in Puerto Rico. These terrorist activities have been organized by extreme right-wing organizations of the Cuban-American community. The United States have made this plainly evident in the classified governmental reports on these matters. There is no doubt in anyone's mind here in Miami, that the terrorists are guilty of crimes that have been committed against the Cuban people for the past 40-some years, resulting in thousands of deaths and other thousands of injuries.

These five men were here in order to try to stop these acts from continuing to happen. The United States is a partner in these crimes, and that is why it acted against these men. The information that is available in the classified U.S. government intelligence sources affirm what I have said. These five men are in prison and have been in prison for ten years now coming September, while well-known terrorists, as Marjorie stated, like Luis Posada Carriles, guilty of heinous crimes, walk free in Miami thanks to government protection. We will not give up. The lawyers will not give up. Those who support the lawyers, the cause of the Five, will not give up. And we will continue denouncing not only the injustice being committed against these five innocent men, but the protection that the United States government has given the terrorists, guilty of such horrible crimes. Thank you.

La Riva: Thank you, Andrés. The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, along with more than 325 committees around the world, have been organizing on the struggle for their freedom since their conviction. Every day, more and more people hear about the Cuban Five, and the unjustness of their imprisonment. They should never have been arrested. They are heroes to people around the world. And as a result of their support, already demonstrations are being planned for tomorrow and the coming days, including today, in San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Minneapolis, Detroit, Washington, Vancouver, Toronto, a press conference tomorrow in Miami, and more are joining in from around the world.

We will now take questions. Before that, I wish to say that we also demand, with supporters of the Cuban Five, for wives of two of the Cuban Five, Adriana Pérez, the wife of Gerardo Hernández, who has a double-life sentence, and Olga Salanueva, the wife of René González, who is in Mariana prison in Florida, the right for them to enter the United States to visit their husbands, and for the U.S. government to stop delaying the visas for the rest of the family members. It's a cruel punishment to the Five and to the Five's families to deny Olga and Adriana the right to enter and to see their husbands, and for the rest of the families to wait up to two years for visas.

We'll now take questions from the media.

Q&A:

Tiffany Roberts (Univisión): What is the next step, as far as the legal process goes? Because the Appeals Court said that the sentence had been exaggerated, so that they called on the judge to re-sentence? I'm not exactly sure legally what's the next step, what is going to happen?

McKenna: Three of the defendants are going to be remanded, that means sent back to the United States District Court Judge Lenard, and they are going to be re-sentenced. The Appellate Panel made a decision that she sentenced them using a guideline range that was too high, and she has to re-sentence because she imposed a life sentence on two of the defendants, and on a third defendant, Ruben Campa, that also has to be revisited, because she gave some type of an enhancement that was not justified. So three of the defendants will go back. Two of the defendants, Mr. González and my client, Gerardo Hernández, now have to sit down and decide whether we're going to seek an en banc review of the opinion, which is what the government did to us after we were victorious on the first go-around. We have to evaluate that, and I think that I read some things yesterday that indicated to me that we could do it. So that's the first order of business for those that are not going back to the District Court, that is, to decide whether or not we have to do an en banc appeal. And then, if that were not to be the case, or if we were not successful with an en banc appeal, then we would take an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, seek a writ of certiorari.

Solange Reyner (Miami Herald): How long do you anticipate the time frame for that to happen?

Klugh: We're hearing that the petition will be filed within three weeks, then it's up to the court how long it will take to handle the rehearing petition. Once that is resolved, if we still need to go to the Supreme Court, we would file that petition within 90 days of the resolution of the case in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court would hopefully resolve the case sometime within this coming term, prior to June of next year.

Tiffany Roberts (Univisión): You said the three defendants will have to be remanded. Do they physically appear before the Judge, and also, when you do the en banc, are you just going to do it for González and Hernández, or are you going to do it for all five of them?

McKenna: That's a good question, but the first thing that has to happen with three of the defendants, right now their sentences are vacated, which means that they have to be re-sentenced before they can take further appeals. And that does require their physical appearance in front of the judge in Miami. They'll have to be sent back from their jails, and appear, and it will be the same rights that they had the first time they were sentenced. They must be physically there, they have a right to be facing the court when they are sentenced. The issue of whether they can all take an en banc review before that remand, I defer to Richard Klugh on that one.

Klugh: The attorneys will further discuss that. There are a number of issues. Almost every issue in this case was in some sense a first impression issue. Those are the types of issues that are frequently handled by an en banc court. So given the variety and number of the issues, there is certainly every reason to believe that each of the five will consider seeking rehearing and probably a rehearing en banc of some aspect of the case.

Andrés Gómez: What are the specific charges that their sentences were sent back to review or resentence by the District Court?

Klugh: The conspiracy to obtain national defense information, the court held that as to those counts, for which life sentences were imposed, that the fact that there was no classified information obtained, required a re-sentencing. In addition, Fernando González (Ruben Campa), his sentence was based on a violation of immigration laws.

Tiffany Roberts (Univisión): Are there any guidelines for the new sentence, since the sentence was vacated, and the Judge will have to sentence them again? Is there any sentence guidelines, what are they facing now? Or is it still to the discretion of the judge?

McKenna: Correct me if I'm wrong, but after the Supreme Court decision in Booker, the rule across the United States right now is that the sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, they are advisory and judges consult them, but they're not bound by them. So I think that when these three defendants go back for resentencing, the court could sentence however she felt she wanted to.

Klugh: Certainly the guidelines are so substantially lower as a result of this decision, the base guideline range for the conviction would be 17 years. You have such a marked deviation. When the original sentence was imposed, the guideline range was no guideline range at all, it required a life sentence, so that on remand it would be a substantial reduction. There's certainly every reason to believe that the sentence should be lower.

Unknown questioner: Like for example Mr. (René) González, who was sentenced to 15 years?

Klugh: His sentence was not vacated.

Unknown questioner: Fernando González was 19 years. So if it goes down to like 10 years, is it possible it would be time served, and he could go free?

Klugh: It's always possible. The guideline reduction for him would be a two-level reduction, and it could be approaching time served, but again, those types of issues would have to be more fully briefed and litigated.

Solange Reyner (Miami Herald): What do expecting at the trial for the three who were remanded?

Klugh: It's too early to predict. We'll prepare our sentencing arguments, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to fully present our arguments for why substantially lower sentences should be imposed. It's difficult to predict exactly at this point.

Steve Patt: Although the decision remanded two of the three convicted of espionage conspiracy for resentencing, it didn't do so for Gerardo Hernández on the grounds that he's serving another life sentence for murder conspiracy. But that seems strange, since his murder conspiracy conviction could well be reversed, so why didn't they remand his espionage conspiracy sentencing as well?

McKenna: That's the way that they look at it. Until another court does that, there's no reason to remand it, if he's already serving a life sentence. In their view, it doesn't make any difference. There's no reason to have a court resentence him on the espionage count. Of course, if one day we get to that point, it will be automatic. They'll have to go back for resentencing. What we have to do is what we were talking about at the beginning of the program, we have to continue to stress an en banc court and possibly the Supreme Court regarding this murder conviction. Because clearly, as Judge Kravitch analyzed, and as we presented it, what Cuba did was not an unlawful act. They never intended to shoot down a plane in international waters, nor did Mr. Hernández. That's that Judge Kravitch focused on.

Tiffany Roberts (Univisión): ¿Cuál es el próximo paso, tal y como va el proceso? ¿Porque la Corte de Apelaciones planteó que la sentencia había sido exagerada, es por lo que ellos solicitaron al juez una nueva sentencia? Yo no estoy exactamente segura, legalmente, de cuál es el próximo paso, qué es lo que va a pasar.

McKenna: Los casos de tres de los acusados van a ser llevados a un proceso legal nuevamente, esto significa volver a la Corte de la jueza Lenard del Distrito de los Estados Unidos, y van a volver a ser sentenciados. El Panel de Apelaciones tomó la decisión de que ella los sentenció usando un rango muy alto de la guía de sentencias, y ella tiene que volver a sentenciarlos porque ella impuso cadena perpetua a dos de los acusados, y a un tercer acusado, Rubén Campa, que también tiene que ser revisitado, porque ella le aplicó un realce que no está justificado. Entonces tres de los acusados van a volver atrás. Dos de los acusados, el Sr. González y mi cliente, Gerardo Hernández, ahora tienen que sentarse y decidir si vamos a buscar una revisión de la opinión por el pleno de la Corte—en banc—que fue lo que el gobierno nos hizo después de que nosotros salimos victoriosos en la primera vuelta. Tenemos que evaluar eso, y yo pienso que leí algunas cosas ayer que me indicaron que podríamos hacerlo. Así que eso es lo primero en lo que tienen que ocuparse los que no van de regreso a la Corte del Distrito, es decir, decidir si vamos a hacer o no una apelación en banc. Y si este no fuera a ser el caso, o si no tenemos éxito en la apelación en banc, entonces tomaríamos una apelación a la Corte Suprema de los EEUU, buscaríamos una petición de certiorari.

Solange Reyner (Miami Herald):¿Cuánto tiempo estima usted que tomará que esto suceda?

Klugh: Estamos oyendo que la petición será archivada en menos de tres semanas, entonces depende de la corte cuánto tiempo le tomará ocuparse de la petición de reaudiencia. Una vez que esto esté resuelto, si necesitamos aún ir a la Corte Suprema presentaríamos la solicitud en un plazo de 90 días a partir de la resolución del caso en la Corte de Apelaciones. Esperamos que la Corte Suprema resuelva el caso antes del próximo periodo, antes de junio del próximo año.

Tiffany Roberts (Univisión): Usted dijo que los tres acusados serán llevados a la corte de distrito nuevamente. Ellos se presentarán físicamente ante la jueza, y también cuando ustedes hagan el proceso en banc, ¿o usted lo va a hacer por González y Hernández, o lo va a hacer por todos los Cinco?

McKenna: Esa es una buena pregunta, pero lo primero que tiene que suceder con tres de los acusados, cuyas sentencias acaban de ser revocadas, lo que significa que tienen que ser sentenciados nuevamente antes que ellos puedan presentar nuevas apelaciones. Y eso requiere su presencia física frente a la jueza en Miami. Ellos tendrán que ser enviados de vuelta desde sus prisiones, y presentarse, y será con los mismos derechos que tuvieron la primera vez que fueron sentenciados. Ellos deben estar físicamente allá, ellos tienen el derecho de estar frente a la corte cuando sean sentenciados. El tema de si ellos podrán o no tener todos una revisión en banc antes de ese proceso, lo difiero a Richard Klugh.

Klugh: Los abogados van a analizarlo nuevamente. Existe un número de aspectos. Casi cada aspecto en este caso fue en algún sentido un aspecto de primera impresión. Esos son los tipos de aspectos de que se ocupa frecuentemente una corte en banc. Entonces, dada la variedad y el número de aspectos, existe ciertamente razón para creer que cada uno de los Cinco considerará la búsqueda de una nueva audiencia y probablemente una nueva audiencia en banc de algún aspecto del caso.

Andrés Gómez: ¿Cuáles son los cargos específicos en que las sentencias fueron revocadas para revisar o volver a recibir sentencia por la Corte del Distrito?

Klugh: La conspiración para obtener información sobre la defensa nacional, la corte sostuvo que para aquellos cargos por los que se impuso cadenas perpetuas, que el hecho de que no hubo información clasificada obtenida, requerían una nueva sentencia. Además, Fernando González (Rubén Campa), su sentencia estuvo basada en una violación de las leyes de migración.

Tiffany Roberts (Univisión): ¿Existe alguna guía para la nueva sentencia, ya que la sentencia fue revocada y la jueza tendrá que sentenciarlos nuevamente? ¿Existe alguna guía de sentencias? ¿Qué están enfrentando ellos ahora? ¿O es todavía a la discreción de la jueza?

McKenna: Corríjanme si cometo un error, pero después de la decisión de la Corte Suprema en el caso Booker, la regla para todo Estados Unidos ahora es que la guía de sentencias no es obligatoria, son recomendaciones y jueces las consultan, pero no están obligados a seguirlas. Yo pienso que cuando estos tres acusados vuelvan para ser sentenciados nuevamente, la corte podría sentenciarlos de cualquier manera que ella sienta que ella quiera hacerlo.

Klugh: Ciertamente las líneas directivas son tan sustancialmente inferiores como resultado de esta decisión, el rango base de la guía para la condena sería de 17 años. Ustedes tienen una marcada diferencia. Cuando la sentencia original fue impuesta el rango de la guía no fue tomado en cuenta para nada, se requería una cadena perpetua, entonces esto significaría una reducción sustancial.

Desconocido: ¿Como por ejemplo el Sr. (René) González, quien fue sentenciado a 15 años?

Klugh: Su sentencia no fue revocada.

Desconocido: Fernando González recibió 19 años. Entonces si se rebaja como 10 años, ¿es posible que esto sea el tiempo cumplido, y él pudiera ser puesto en libertad?

Klugh: Esto es siempre posible. La reducción de la guía para él sería una reducción en dos niveles, y sería una aproximación al tiempo cumplido, pero, de nuevo, estos tipos de aspectos tendrían que ser más completamente resumidos y litigados.

Solange Reyner (Miami Herald): ¿Cuáles son las expectativas para los tres que fueron enviados a nuevo juicio?

Klugh: Es muy temprano para predicciones. Nosotros prepararemos nuestros argumentos para la sentencia, y esperamos que tengamos la oportunidad de presentar totalmente nuestros argumentos acerca de que deben ser impuestas sentencias significativamente más reducidas. Es difícil predecir algo exactamente en este momento.

Steve Patt: Sin embargo, la decisión de volver a la corte del distrito a dos de los tres condenados por conspiración para hacer espionaje, para ser sentenciados nuevamente, no es la misma para Gerardo Hernández, sobre la base de que él está cumpliendo otra condena a cadena perpetua por conspiración para cometer asesinato. Pero esto luce extraño, ya que su condena por conspiración para cometer asesinato podría ser revocada, entonces, ¿por qué ellos no llevan a juicio nuevamente también la sentencia por conspiración para hacer espionaje?

McKenna: Esa es la forma en que ellos lo ven. Mientras otra corte no lo haga, no hay razón para llevarlo a la corte para una nueva sentencia, si ya él está cumpliendo una cadena perpetua. Desde su punto de vista, esto no establece diferencia alguna. No hay razón para pedir a la corte una nueva sentencia para él en el caso del espionaje. Desde luego, si un día llegamos a este punto, eso será automático. Ellos tendrían que retornar el caso para una nueva sentencia. Lo que nosotros tenemos que hacer es lo que hemos estado diciendo desde el principio del programa, tenemos que continuar haciendo énfasis en la corte en banc y posiblemente en la Corte Suprema, en cuanto a esta condena por asesinato. Porque claramente, como lo analizó la jueza Kravitch, y nosotros lo presentamos, lo que hizo Cuba no fue un acto ilegal. Ellos nunca intentaron derribar un avión en aguas internacionales, ni tampoco el Sr. Hernández. En esto se concentró la jueza Kravitch.

 

 

HOME  •  News Updates  •  Calendar  •  Resources  •  Store/Donations  •  Contact Us  •  HOME
Portada  •  Noticias  •  Calendario  •  Recursos  •  Tienda/Donaciones  •  Contáctenos  •  Portada