Killing of Ahmaud Arbery - Federal Hate Crime Charges

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-ge ... tion-death

Three Georgia Men Charged with Federal Hate Crimes and Attempted Kidnapping in Connection with the Death of Ahmaud Arbery

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Three Georgia men were indicted today by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia and charged with hate crimes and the attempted kidnapping of Ahmaud Arbery. The indictment also charges two of the men with separate counts of using firearms during that crime of violence.

Travis McMichael, 35; Travis’s father, Gregory McMichael, 65; and William “Roddie” Bryan, 51, were each charged with one count of interference with rights and with one count of attempted kidnapping. Travis and Gregory McMichael were also charged with one count each of using, carrying, and brandishing—and in Travis’s case, discharging—a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

Counts One and Two of the indictment allege that the defendants used force and threats of force to intimidate and interfere with Arbery’s right to use a public street because of his race. Specifically, Count One of the indictment alleges that as Arbery was running on a public street in the Satilla Shores neighborhood of Brunswick, Georgia, Travis and Gregory McMichael armed themselves with firearms, got into a truck, and chased Arbery through the public streets of the neighborhood while yelling at him, using their truck to cut off his route, and threatening him with firearms. Count One also alleges that the offense resulted in Arbery’s death. Count Two alleges that William “Roddie” Bryan joined the chase and used his truck to cut off Arbery’s route.

In addition to the hate-crime charges, Count Three alleges that all three defendants attempted to unlawfully seize and confine Arbery by chasing after him in their trucks in an attempt to restrain him, restrict his free movement, corral and detain him against his will, and prevent his escape. Counts Four and Five allege that during the course of the crime of violence charged in Count One, Travis used, carried, brandished, and discharged a Remington shotgun, and Gregory used, carried, and brandished a .357 Magnum revolver.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/cr ... e57e10a888

The saga continues: Men convicted of murdering Ahmaud Arbery to appear back in court on hate crimes charges


The murder trial may be over, but the saga continues. Sentencing for the November trial will come first, then the three men will appear in court once again--at the federal courthouse in Brunswick--to be tried on hate crimes charges.

A federal judge scheduled the trial to begin Feb. 7, with jury selection.

The federal, five-count indictment against the three men says that they “did willfully by force...interfere with Ahmaud Arbery, an African American man, because of Arbery’s race and color," which "resulted in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.”

“Just because the lion chews on you, doesn’t mean the bear won’t come along a little bit later," said former federal prosecutor Bret Williams of Atlanta, who is now a criminal defense attorney.

Williams said if the men are convicted of Count One of the federal indictment alone, "The penalty is life. Life in prison but it goes all the way up to death. But typically what you’re talking about is a life sentence." That would be on top of the multiple life sentences the men are expected to receive on the state murder convictions.

Legal experts tell 11Alive federal prosecutors will need to present a different case to prove there was racial prejudice against Arbery if they want to receive a conviction on the hate crimes charges.

Former prosecutor and current defense attorney Darryl Cohen said he sees two scenarios; one where the federal case is dismissed and one where it goes to trial.

"Because it has already been adjudicated, because the three of them have been convicted, I wouldn't be surprised if the feds say, 'You know what, we aren't going to prosecute them.' Because the reality is how much more time can they get? You can't get more time than you're alive. But they may do it because they think it is appropriate and they're trying to send a message to the rest of this country you can't do what these three people did," Cohen said.

Looking head, Cohen said Travis McMichael being the only defendant found guilty of malice murder could impact the sentences the defendants receive.

He said he could see Travis being sentence to life in prison without parole and potentially Gregory McMichael and William Bryan being sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, though that will be up to the judge.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

A question for the IAACrLs: If Greg McMichaels is convicted of hate crimes, does that call into question his previous criminal investigations of Black defendants?

[bob]

If Greg McMichaels is convicted of hate crimes, does that call into question his previous criminal investigations of Black defendants?

Legally, it is possible. A person convicted could go back and ask for any information about McMichaels' personnel file, to see if there's anything there. But that a cop is racist isn't likely to overturn a conviction, unless the person convicted can show a link between the racism and conviction. So not probable.

Politically is a different: the DA (or AG) could do its own investigation, and then go forward from there.

[Maybenaut]

If Greg McMichaels is convicted of hate crimes, does that call into question his previous criminal investigations of Black defendants?

Legally, it is possible. A person convicted could go back and ask for any information about McMichaels' personnel file, to see if there's anything there. But that a cop is racist isn't likely to overturn a conviction, unless the person convicted can show a link between the racism and conviction. So not probable.

Politically is a different: the DA (or AG) could do its own investigation, and then go forward from there.

I once had a case involving a Black defendant and a white victim, and on the eve of trial the lead detective on the case was placed on administrative leave for his ties to a white supremacist organization (he was later fired). We got a delay to investigate but ultimately weren’t able to prove that the cop’s white supremacy affected the investigation, even though I know in my heart that it did.

[humblescribe]

Why would the feds decide to drop the charges altogether?

Since we know that the defendants are appealing their state convictions, is it not prudent to continue with the federal charges? I mean why not have federal convictions in the bank if the state convictions are bounced.

(Of course, I have no idea how strong the grounds are for appealing these convictions, nor do I know how persuaded the judges are at every level of appeal.)

I would hate to have these jokers walk out of jail sometime next year if the appeals court overturns their convictions, and the state decides to dismiss.

[bob]

I once had a case involving a Black defendant and a white victim, and on the eve of trial the lead detective on the case was placed on administrative leave for his ties to a white supremacist organization (he was later fired). We got a delay to investigate but ultimately weren’t able to prove that the cop’s white supremacy affected the investigation, even though I know in my heart that it did.

That's the typical scenario: what you know and what you can prove are often different. It is rare for a racist officer to exclaim or otherwise document how their racism influenced a particular case.

* * *

Why would the feds decide to drop the charges altogether?

Time and money. Bouncing the rubble isn't free.

But prosecutors often bounce rubble for political considerations.

[LM K]

Thoughts on plea agreements?

Would a plea agreement in the federal cases make it more difficult for the 3 defendants to appeal their state verdicts?

[Maybenaut]

Thoughts on plea agreements?

Would a plea agreement in the federal cases make it more difficult for the 3 defendants to appeal their state verdicts?

Whether the federal government would enter a plea agreement in this case would be a matter of policy. Do they want to spend federal dollars on a trial when these guys are unlikely to see the light of day? Maybe. Vindication of civil rights, particularly now, is important to the federal government, I think. I can’t say what the feds will do, but I think a plea agreement in which they all plead guilty to all the charges in exchange for a sentencing recommendation is at least possible.

But I don’t think any of this will have any impact on the state appeals. Appeals almost always involve errors that occurred at the trial, which has nothing really to do with the federal charges. I don’t know whether the feds could require the defendants to abandon their state appeals, but my gut tells me they can’t (but my gut has been wrong about such things before, so…).

[bob]

But I don’t think any of this will have any impact on the state appeals. Appeals almost always involve errors that occurred at the trial, which has nothing really to do with the federal charges. I don’t know whether the feds could require the defendants to abandon their state appeals, but my gut tells me they can’t (but my gut has been wrong about such things before, so…).

My WAG is one jurisdiction could make an offer contingent on dropping appeals (or pleading guilty) in another jurisdiction.

But it won't happen in this case the defendants (now) have no incentive to drop their state appeals and plead out on the federal charges.

[Maybenaut]

But I don’t think any of this will have any impact on the state appeals. Appeals almost always involve errors that occurred at the trial, which has nothing really to do with the federal charges. I don’t know whether the feds could require the defendants to abandon their state appeals, but my gut tells me they can’t (but my gut has been wrong about such things before, so…).

My WAG is one jurisdiction could make an offer contingent on dropping appeals (or pleading guilty) in another jurisdiction.

But it won't happen in this case the defendants (now) have no incentive to drop their state appeals and plead out on the federal charges.

I agree it won't happen in this case. Even if the federal plea agreement required them to waive their state appeals, I think Garza v. Idaho would require their state counsel to file, at the very least, a notice of appeal, even if in the counsel's view the right to appeal had been waived. If the issue is one that cannot be waived, then counsel would have to brief that issue, I think. And only the State court can say whether that waiver is enforceable. What if the state court decides the waiver is not enforceable? The government isn't going to open that can of worms.

[Kendra]

Sentencing day...

[RVInit]

Live hearing happening now: Edit: There are captions for those of us who are at work.

[Kendra]

Damn, his mother was especially spot on, including a zinger about her son's toenails and maybe he'd have trimmed and cleaned them if he'd known he was going to be murdered that day.

[Foggy]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[RVInit]

Well, Foggy, you tried your best to put Fitzfundfilcher's feelings first. Well, maybe he can tell himself...

[Maybenaut]

Damn, his mother was especially spot on, including a zinger about her son's toenails and maybe he'd have trimmed and cleaned them if he'd known he was going to be murdered that day.

That toenail comment by the defense counsel was so bizarre. I didn’t watch any of the closing arguments, so I don’t know whether the prosecution commented on that in rebuttal. I just remember reading about it here. But it was so stupid for the defense to put anything negative at all on the victim, unless it was to say that he was the aggressor. I know, it’s pretty obvious from the videos that he was not the aggressor, but if you’re going to talk about the victim, that’s about all you can say. Otherwise you say it was just a big tragic misunderstanding.

[LM K]

Refresher:

IMG_07012022_105112_(900_x_1060_pixel).png (456.46 KiB) Viewed 2506 times

ETA: Source

[Uninformed]

15 minute recess then sentences…

[Volkonski]

[LM K]

Travis McMichael: Life w/o parole + 20 years

Gregory McMichael: Life w/o parole + 20 years

William Bryan: Life with the possibility of parole

[LM K]

For Travis and Gregory McMichael.

Some sentences are to run consecutively to Life w/o Parole.

All of Bryan's sentences in addition to Life with Parole runs concurrently.

[filly]

Watched some but not all of this. This Judge was fair throughout the trial and the sentences are just.

[realist]

Watched some but not all of this. This Judge was fair throughout the trial and the sentences are just.

[filly]

Did anyone note Greg McMicheal’s hand wave upon sentencing? Arrogant asshole until the end.