Darfur Genocide on Trial

Got word today that the Appeals Court in DC voted unanimously to uphold the conviction of seven activists for civil disobedience at the Sudanese Embassy in 2005.

The defendants plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Update: Scott Schaeffer-Duffy adds, “This is what the court ruled:”

District of Columbia Court of Appeals senior judges Newman, Belson, and Warren King: Appellants appeal their convictions of incommoding for blocking the entrance to the Sudanese embassy in protest of that country’s policies in Darfur. They claim that the trial court erred in rejecting their defenses of necessity and justification under international law. We affirm.

Substantially for the reasons stated by the trail judge in his Findings of the Court, we are satisfied that the government presented sufficient evidence to establish a violation of DC criminal code 22-1307 and that the court properly rejected the defenses put forth. United States v. Maxwell, Emry v. United States, Reale v. United States, Shiel v. United States, Griffin v. United States, Morgan v. District of Columbia. [cititions omitted]. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Read the rest of this entry »

On November 6, 2007, three of the seven defendants convicted for civil disobedience in 2005 against the Darfur genocide went to Washington, DC, for oral arguments in an appeal of their case.

Yesterday, I talked to two of them, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, about how it went. The men are members of the Saints Francis & Therese Catholic Worker community in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Click here to listen to the conversation (mp3)

You can also see more formats or subscribe to the Pie and Coffee podcast feed.

Ken Hannaford-Ricardi and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy

 

 Standard Podcast [11:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The DC Court of Appeals has granted the motion of the Sudan Seven for the right to an oral argument of their appeal on Tuesday, November 6, at 10 a.m. The court is small, but spectators are welcome. For more information call Scott Schaeffer-Duffy at 508 753-3588.

Today I talked with Catholic Worker Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, who’s been appealing the conviction of seven protestors who in 2005 blocked the Sudanese embassy in Washington, DC, to protest the Darfur genocide.

All of the briefs and motions have been filed, and with luck there will be “oral argument” of the appeal this summer. Scott talks about why he thinks his group is not guilty, and how he’ll convince the judges of that.

For more info, see Darfur Genocide on Trial.

You can download the mp3 (3MB) or see other formats. You can also subscribe (RSS) to the podcast.

May 25, 2005: Tom Lewis, Harry Duchesne, Brian Kavanagh, Liz Fallon, Brenna Cussen, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi, and Scott Schaeffer-Duffy are happy to be outside after a day in D.C. Superior Court.

 

 Scott Schaeffer-Duffy: Darfur and the necessity defense: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Background: Darfur Genocide on Trial)

The brief for the appellants (former defendants) has been filed. It was about 38 pages long with a 29 page appendix.

The District Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia has until the 2nd of February to file its brief and then the appellants have 15 days after that to file a rebuttal brief if they so desire.

After this, the DC Court of Appeals will schedule oral arguments before three judges in DC. Their ruling will come sometime in the following six months.

Robert Hollander, the attorney who advised the defendants at trial, said that he believes this appeal has a strong chance of success. If it prevails, and the verdict is overturned, this will be a major victory for the campaign against genocide in Darfur and also for activists who hope to use the necessity defense to justify nonviolent civil disobedience.

Many lower courts have upheld necessity, but no court of appeal has done so for cases of civil diosbedience. The precendent would be very significant.