Read on Twitter
there's a hearing this morning in the ongoing litigation against the organizers of the deadly 2017 unite the right rally. defendants have moved to exclude the expert testimony of 2 professors, peter simi and kathleen blee, as "irrelevant" and "prejudicial"
"this report is shot through with an attempt to testify to witness credibility and also offers legal conclusions," defendants' lawyer james kolenich says, referring to a report prepared by the experts on their analysis of the available evidence of planning for the rally.
kolenich objects to these experts' use of terms like "white supremacist movement" and their characterization of such a movement as violent.
kolenich says allowing the experts to testify that rally organizers recruited participants who were willing to use violence is "attacking the credibility" of his clients' testimony, since they will testify to the opposite.
(uh oh someone's phone isn't muted - we heard a snippet of a private conversation about an unrelated issue - it sounded like it might've been robbie kaplan on another phone call?)
"the use of the phrase 'white supremacist movement' is itself objectionable," kolenich tells the court. alleging the mere existence of the movement is something he is attempting to keep out of the jury's minds.
judge moon says it is common in drug cases to allow expert testimony about what is meant when slang terms/terms used to obscure the criminal nature of the conduct are used - why can't these experts testify to the unique terminology used within this community?
kolenich says this is "conceptually distinct" from drug trafficking, but doesn't really offer any reason why this is true.
"double speak is not limited to drugs," anyone engaging in conduct they'd like to look innocuous to a 3rd party could use coded language, says judge moon
"double speak is not limited to drugs," anyone engaging in conduct they'd like to look innocuous to a 3rd party could use coded language, says judge moon
kolenich says he doesn't object to the content in the report about "historical" analysis of "white racialists" from these experts, but they shouldn't be allowed to opine about how this applies to the defendants' conduct.
bloch for the plaintiffs says the motion should be denied in its entirety. he says kolenich has "mischaracterized" the scope of the intended expert testimony. "they will not opine on whether this is a conspiracy," bloch assures the judge.
"they will not opine on what any particular defendant intended" or on the credibility of any particular witness. they won't state any legal conclusions, bloch says. he says kolenich plucked out & decontextualized statements from a 63 page report.
bloch cites expert testimony allowed in gang trials - wearing red is not a characteristic unique to members of the bloods, but experts were allowed to testify to its meaning in that specific context.
"defendants utilized white supremacist movement tactics in planning unite the right," bloch quotes from the report
judge moon interrupts to ask why it's important to prove they used WS tactics & not just that they engaged in a criminal conspiracy?
judge moon interrupts to ask why it's important to prove they used WS tactics & not just that they engaged in a criminal conspiracy?
"the bloods are an organized group. the white supremacy movement is just ideas.... people with similar ideas? i gather there's no president, there's no organization?" judge moon pushes back on the comparison (sounds like he needs to hear this expert testimony)
bloch shifts again, citing the allowability of expert testimony on the specific, distinctive tactics & behavior of people like child molesters. that isn't an organized movement, but it is a group with a distinctive subculture made up of people who behave in specific ways.
"you could say the nazis had this particular language, did these things, but one could also say the CIA probably used similar tactics. they had different motives..." judge moon, you are so close.
it's a 4 week trial, just let these experts testify for an hour or two, what difference does it make.
"when these defendants use the number 88, for example, it is not just an innocuous number," bloch says. this is something we need the experts to testify to. when the defendants say it's a joke about a racecar driver, that needs to be challenged.
there is an idea that there is "an imminent threat to the white race and the threat comes from jewish people and black people," bloch says. that's relevant to their conduct, it's meant to make followers "feel like there is a threat of imminent danger."
"that sort of language is not just 'innocuous' racism, it's a well designed tactic to encourage violence," bloch says about what he hopes to have the experts testify to. that is PART of the conspiracy to commit race-based violence.
