Posted on 09/09/2002 4:35:16 PM PDT by Marianne
BUFFALO - Loretta Marra's premonitions that Federal District Court Judge Richard Arcara would reject a plea agreement forged over the summer between federal prosecutors and lawyers representing her and her husband, Dennis Malvasi were realized in a Buffalo courtroom August 21 when Arcara killed the deal.
A testy Judge Arcara accused both the government's attorneys and the defendants' attorneys of manipulating the legal system, and accused Marra and Malvasi of being "accessories" to the murder of Buffalo abortionist Barnett Slepian.
Marra and Malvasi, who have already served 17 months in jail for helping James Kopp return to the United States after fleeing the country in the aftermath of the Slepian shooting in October 1998, are charged with a total of ten counts - four for Marra, six for Malvasi, of aiding and abetting a fugitive.
"I find that the public good would not be served by the acceptance of this plea agreement," said Arcara after an intense four-hour confrontation with attorneys on both sides in which he frequently appeared angry, sweating in his black judicial robes.
"Be prepared for the start of trial on September 10." (see following story)
Shortly after ll:00 a.m., on the court hearing date, Loretta Marra entered the court dressed in a casual sweater, while her husband entered in gray and white prison stripes. They were accompanied by their separate lawyers, Long Island attorney Bruce A. Barket representing Marra and Buffalo defense attorney Thomas J. Eoannou representing Malvasi.
Court was only in session for moments when it clearly became evident that Arcara was out for blood. To the apparent surprise to both the large number of pro-lifers who witnessed the hearing, and to the small number of pro-aborts in attendance, the federal government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen Mehltretter, fought vigorously for the plea agreement, as did the defendants' attorneys; but Judge Arcara would hear nothing of it.
Mehltretter presented the government's position that all of the 10-year counts should be dropped and that only count No. 4, which carried a maximum five-year sentence, should be maintained.
Much of the courtroom discussion between Arcara and federal and defense attorneys focused on federal sentencing guidelines, and how they should be applied in this case. The sentencing guidelines have various schedules, on a scale of one to 43. Prosecutors were seeking a "level 15," but Arcara was demanding a severity of 30. While acknowledging a level of 25 would be suitable for the plea charge of "aiding and abetting" a fugitive, the judge made every effort to increase the severity by asserting that the defendants not only aided and abetted, but were also guilty of being "accessories after the fact."
The judge insisted Marra and Malvasi were "accessories" because, in his opinion, the defendants knew, while they were assisting Kopp, that he was guilty of Slepian's murder.
Government lawyers insisted there was no evidence for the judge's claims.
Arcara's entire argument resolved around one letter and a subsequent e-mail sent by Kopp to Marra and Malvasi, in which he made references to "coming out of retirement," "returning to the field" and committing a "Ronald Reagan."
What is Ronald Reagan?" Arcara demanded of Mehltretter after the letter was read before the court.
"The government would argue that it is a reference to Ronald Reagan, who was shot," Mehltretter answered. "A reference to a person being shot." She further explained the government's position that Kopp's allusion to "returning to the field" meant returning to the states to murder more abortionists.
"Isn't that evidence that they are accessories after the fact?" Arcara asked.
"The evidence is insufficient," Mehltretter insisted, that Marra and Malvasi knew about the murder in advance or that they knew Kopp had any role in it.
Malvasi's attorney, Thomas Eoannou described the letter as "a mess," barely comprehensible.
With this vague and minor reference to Ronald Reagan or "RR squared," the judge presumed that Kopp was telling his longtime friends that he had, indeed, killed Slepian, that the defendants knew of Kopp's "crime," and therefore were indeed accessories.
Throughout the day, Mehltretter constantly repeated such statements as "These comments don't directly relate to or reference to Slepian," and "The government decided the evidence is insufficient."
But Arcara was relentless. The judge repeatedly cited other court cases that advised judges to "ensure plea agreements are not used to undermine sentencing guidelines and that a strong judicial hand is necessary to protect the public interest."
The U.S. Attorney had prepared remarks to explain the government's rationale for attempting to enter into a plea agreement, but Arcara continued demanding that she read over and over again many of the details that served to paint the defendants as criminals.
For example, Mehltretter discussed some of the case history which included details of Marra and Malvasi renting a 385 Chestnut Street (Brooklyn) address under the assumed names of Ted and Joyce Barns.
In one of the few occasions either defendant spoke during the hearing, Marra directly responded to the judge by saying she and her husband used the false names "only to hide from Dennis' probation officer" following a previous conviction.
Malvasi was ordered to stay away from Marra so, as he forthrightly admitted in court, he lied to the probation officer when asked if he was married to Marra. Furthermore, he admitted he and his wife had gone to great lengths to be with each other, and were married by a Catholic priest but did not register the marriage under the laws of New York State.
This court hearing also revealed many other details, particularly the government's ability to keep the defendants and virtually all of their correspondence and communicating under surveillance, as well as the fact that Marra was editing a manuscript that Kopp was writing.
Despite appeals that Arcara accept the plea agreement, the judge was adamant in his belief that Marra and Malvasi stand trial. "We're not going to have blinders on," he said at one point. "Based on what I've heard here today, the issue of accessory after the fact is not as clear as it is being presented to me," Arcara saud, "I've heard some things that concerned me today."
Marra's attorney, Barket, called the judge's decision to reject the agreement a "fiasco," and disputed Arcara's claim the attorneys involved in the settlement were trying to manipulate the court.
"There was no attempt to manipulate the sentencing guidelines," he said. "We worked for a very long time to work out a plea deal that was fair to both sides."
Malvasi's attorney said he would go back to Mehltretter to try to forge a new agreement that would be suitable to both parties, and the court, before the September 10 trial date - a date Mehltretter said did not give the government enough time to prepare for trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.