Defense: Alleged AIM slaying gun was with police
Monica
Graham
A defense lawyer for one of two men charged with the 1975 slaying of
an American Indian Movement member has accused prosecutors of putting
“erroneous and untrue” accusations in a court filing because the
alleged murder weapon was locked up at the time.
John Graham and Richard Marshall pleaded not guilty to charges they
committed or aided and abetted the Dec. 12, 1975, murder of Annie Mae
Aquash on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. They are scheduled to
stand trial starting May 12 in Rapid City, S.D.
The government’s theory is that Marshall gave a .32-caliber revolver
and shells to Graham, Arlo Looking Cloud and Theda Clark, who stopped
by Marshall’s house with Aquash around Dec. 12, 1975.
According to court testimony, hours later, after taking her to a cliff
in the Badlands, Looking Cloud gave Graham the gun, he shot Aquash as
she prayed, and then the two men buried the weapon nearby under a
bridge and it never was found.
At the time, Marshall was awaiting trial for killing Martin Montileaux
on March 1, 1975, a crime for which he was later convicted.
Marshall
Prosecutors asked the judge to allow evidence that the .32-caliber
pistol used to kill Aquash could have been the same one seized when
Marshall was arrested for the Montileaux murder.
But Marshall’s attorney, Dana Hanna, responded that his client
couldn’t have had the gun when Aquash was killed because it was in
placed in police custody in March 1975 and offered as evidence at the
April 1976 trial in which Marshall was convicted of killing
Montileaux.
Hanna included with his filing a court transcript of the trial in
which South Dakota Highway Patrolman Merlyn Muir testified he
recovered the gun after Marshall was arrested.
After the shooting, law enforcement officers chased and caught a 1968
Ford carrying Marshall and seven other people.
Muir said he found the .32-caliber revolver under the right front
seat. Four other guns also were seized from the car, including a .22-
caliber pistol used to kill Montileaux.
Hanna argued that the .32-caliber pistol was never directly tied to
Marshall.
And a receipt showing the car’s release to a woman on June 1, 1975,
does not indicate if any of the guns were returned, only the car’s
“contents,” he wrote.
The transcript of Muir’s testimony shows that the .32-caliber gun was
offered as an exhibit. It was not received into evidence because it
played no part in the Montileaux case, Hanna wrote.
The defense lawyer wrote that such “easily discoverable and available
facts” prove Marshall didn’t have access to the gun from March 1975 to
April 1976.
“Obviously, it could not have been the gun that was used to kill Anna
Mae Aquash on December 12, 1975,” Hanna wrote.
“It is demonstrably, provably, false, based upon the court records,”
he said in an interview.
U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley is not allowed to comment on pending
cases.
In his motion, Hanna argued that besides the gun, prosecutors also
should not be allowed to tell jurors about Marshall’s conviction for
the Montileaux murder.
He included the Montileaux trial transcript of neurosurgeon Dr. Edward
James, who testified that Montileaux was shot in the neck from the
front and the bullet severed his spinal cord, which paralyzed him,
then lodged in his shoulder. He died days later of pneumonia.
Hanna argued the government wants to include the Montileaux murder on
grounds the circumstances are similar, but Aquash was killed with a
bullet to the back of the head. The person who shot Montileaux was
facing him, he wrote.
“The facts of the defendant’s prior offense have absolutely no
connection or relevance to the killing of Anna Mae Aquash,” Hanna
wrote.
Clarke, who lives in a western Nebraska nursing home, has not been
charged. Looking Cloud was convicted in 2004 for his role in Aquash’s
murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Siobhan
Thanks for posting. I remember reading about this gun from an
unrelated case earlier and wondered what the status was. The effort to
connect it to Aquash murder seems absurd. More smoke and mirrors
from the prosecutors from what I can tell. I'm glad Marshall's
attorney is on the ball. It will be interesting to see what the judge
says.
Monica
John and Richard's lawyers are putting up a fight. Arlo was served up
on a silver platter. The feds have nothing which is why they are
spouting lies and trying to create evidence.
O'Brien
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's a little confusing, however, that Hanna, Richard's lawyer, has
filed motions saying Arlo will be perjuring himself if he says he
didn't have anything to do with the murder.
http://www.grahamdefense.org/courtdocs/index.html
The Greenwood is Magic
..he's merely working for his clients - regardless of others or the
wider game.
Lets hope the Judge is not some sort of sick, twisted, lunatic, mason
and pervert...Jury's can be so docile, they tend to do what Judgy
tells them. They (people) need to know, I think, that they can
actually do exactly as they will, regardless of the courtroom game,
and statute even. Thus they CAN find by common sense, anarchist
freedom etc etc regardless of governmental ritual abuse plays and
games. (the 'beast'). Thus many so called crimes would be found not
guilty by a free and awake people...even if the person on trial was
actually guilty as such, such as the non crime of cannabis cultivation
for ritual useage...not that this is the situation in this case
anyway. I think it was da beast dat did it for real. Poisonous scum
need to be taught a lesson if you ask me.
BLESSED BE
(and not one fuking word from you old wify)
oldwifetale
> BLESSED BE
>
> (and not one fuking word from you old wify)
Mum's the word. :)