The trial of 15 antiwar activists arrested last May at the Port of Olympia ended in a mistrial Thursday.  --  Karma Tenzing Wangchuk was there, and reports that the dramatic conclusion of a trial "frequently marred by questionable prosecution tactics" is "a sign our efforts are working."[1]  --  "[J]urors polled after the dismissal . . . said that a distinct majority was leaning toward a finding of not guilty because they did not believe the testimony of law enforcement witnesses," he reports.  --  "A protest is scheduled at the courthouse tomorrow (Fri., Mar. 30, at 2000 Lakeridge Dr. SW, Olympia) at 1:00 p.m. in opposition to the war in Iraq, militarization of our ports, and injustice in our courtrooms."  --  The Olympian (Olympia, WA) also posted a brief report on the mistrial on Thursday evening.[2] ...

1.

THE OLYMPIA 22: JUSTICE DENIED, PROTEST PLANNED
By Karma Tenzing Wangchuk

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
March 29, 2007

OLYMPIA, Washington -- In a dramatic ending to a courtroom case frequently marred by questionable prosecution tactics, Thurston County District Court Judge Susan Dubuisson this afternoon declared a mistrial in the case of 15 defendants accused of second-degree criminal trespass on Port of Olympia property last May 30. (Five others were arrested that day but were not among those facing charges in this trial.)

A protest is scheduled at the courthouse tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. in opposition to the war in Iraq, militarization of our ports, and injustice in our courtrooms.

The mistrial was prompted this afternoon by attorneys for the prosecution when they introduced copies of an e-mail and attachments they had somehow obtained from a private e-mail listserv. The prosecution contended that the e-mail attachment included information about jurors that could taint the jurors' performance if there were any possibility the information had been distributed outside the private listserv.

The listserv was set up for the private use of defendants and their lawyers only and was therefore protected by lawyer-client privilege. This did not stop the prosecution from either receiving protected material from a mole on the list or possibly, as some suggested, by using the cover of Patriot Act and Homeland Security guidelines to spy on what defendants and lawyers had hoped would be communication protected under the U. S. Constitution.

Neither the judge nor the prosecution suggested any blame could be ascribed to the defense, nor did they suggest that anything illegal had been done -- only that the jurors should be informed that private information could have been inadvertently transmitted outside defense circles, and that once jurors were informed of this, they would be "tainted" and possibly unable to satisfactorily perform their jury duties.

After discussion with both prosecution and defense, with the prosecution calling for a mistrial and defense teams asking repeatedly for longer consideration of the matter and for disclosure of how the e-mail and attachments were obtained by prosecutors, the judge declared a mistrial and the jurors were dismissed.

The defendants' charges have not been dropped. It remains to be seen whether they will be brought to trial a second time.

A hearing will be scheduled soon to look into concerns about methods prosecutors used to gain access to the material from the private listserv. The impact on constitutional rights of lawyer-client privilege and the potential impact on other court cases where private listservs are being used is also likely to be discussed.

The prosecution requested that this hearing be held without the defense being present, a sign perhaps that "national security" concerns might be claimed as justification, or to "protect" the source of the information. This would only add to a sense that prosecutors appeared to be using underhanded tactics reminiscent of Nixon's Watergate-era Dirty Tricks, Reagan's Iran-Contra Cointelpro tactics, or even methods from darker times in Germany before and during World War Two.

Many in the courtroom felt that it was clear that prosecutors were losing the case, so rather than lose outright, they decided to seek a mistrial. This view seems to have been borne out by jurors polled after the dismissal, who said that a distinct majority was leaning toward a finding of not guilty because they did not believe the testimony of law enforcement witnesses.

Tomorrow, Friday, March 30, at 1:00 p.m., there will be a demonstration at the Thurston County Courthouse, 2000 Lakeridge Dr. SW, in Olympia. Bring signs protesting the war and militarization of our ports. Bring signs protesting this injustice to the Olympia 22 and to taxpayers whose courts are being used to waste taxpayer dollars and to make a joke of the U. S. Constitution.

This mistrial is a sign our efforts are working. Please help the Olympia 22 to keep the pressure on. Please come tomorrow so that together we can put an end to war, injustice, and militarization of our ports.

2.

Breaking news

MISTRIAL DECLARED FOR 15 PROTESTERS AT PORT OF OLYMPIA
By Christian Hill

Olympian (Olympia, WA)
March 29, 2007

http://www.theolympian.com/377/story/73734.html

The trial of 15 people who protested last year at the Port of Olympia ended in a mistrial Thursday after the judge learned confidential jury information was sent out over a compromised e-mail listserv used by the codefendants.

The issue came to light after the lunch recess when Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Steve Straume showed Thurston County District Court Judge Susan Dubuisson a copy of an e-mail that was obtained from the supposedly secure listserv. A listserv is an electronic mailing list.

Straume would not tell Dubuisson in court how he obtained a copy of the e-mail. The e-mail contained a spreadsheet with the names of the more than 60 prospective jurors and their responses to a jury questionnaire. A legal aide for one of the defense attorneys created the spreadsheet and sent it to the listserv Saturday, said Andrew Yankey, one of the codefendants. Six jurors and two alternates were selected from the pool Monday.

Most of the information on a jury questionnaire is not to be shared with anyone other than the defendants, defense lawyers, and prosecutors. People other than the codefendants and their attorneys had access to the e-mail listserv.

--For more information, see Friday's Olympian.