Eric McDavid sentenced to 235 months for conspiracy based on snitch Anna

First you had to go through metal detectors to get into the federal building. Then you had to leave your cell phone with the court attendants. Once one got to the courtroom of right wing Judge England from the Eastern District of California, you had to again be metal detected to enter the courtroom. Tom, the FBI handler, an Italian looking moron, of Anna was present with his FBI supervisor, plus a few other feds and DOJ attorneys I imagine. The FBI idiots had a whole row of the seats available, reserved for themselves directly behind Eric.

Persecutor Steve Lapham spoke for the government and Eric's attorney Mark Reichel obviously spoke for Eric.

Eric's whole family was in attendance, two sisters, father and mother along with other friends and supporters. Some mainstream press was also in attendance for the hearing.

Eric was convicted of one count of conspiracy to destroy and damage federal property based on a one count indictment. Judge mentioned that he's reviewed the presentence report filed by the probation officer. Has heard and read the objections by defense to said report which recommended 156 months for sentencing. Judge mentions two cases relating to sentencing, US v. Booker an US v Fanfen(sp?).

Reichel argued that Federal Evidence Rule 6060 was not appropriate and that the evidence code doesn't apply at sentencing and that the court should consider the juror declarations. Two of the jurors filed declarations stating that they were confused on when the conspiracy began and that Eric should receive the same sentence as his two co-defendants, 5 or 7 years. Persecutor Lapham said that the judge shouldn't consider the juror's declarations and that they are irrelevant.

The judge then posed to Eric's attorney what happens in pot cases when many jurors find out that under state law, pot is legal and that many believe that they wouldn't convict someone for marijuana possession had they been aware that state law allows people to possess pot. Eric's attorney didn't think that the jurors where arguing the law wasn't valid, but rather that the juror declarations critical of the FBI handlers running amok and that they were confused at the timing of when the alleged conspiracy began should have led to a special jury instruction. The judge denied the motion to accept the juror declarations as part of Eric's sentencing motion, but would consider the juror declarations similar to character letters submitted to the court.

Reichel reiterated problems he found with the governments opening arguments during the trial and emphasized that he is appealing the judge's denial of a special jury verdict form.

Judge thought that the court isn't bound by Eric's category 6 classification and the advisory guidelines. Eric's attorney raised that essentially what Anna did and although he didn't grant the entrapment defense, he should consider the entrapment she caused for Eric. IE...conspiracy has two basic elements to it. Agreement between two or more to commit a crime and an overt act towards that crime. Eric's attorney raised the issue faced in drug cases, where the government goes for a higher sentence at conviction by furtherance of the government's entrapment with a use of a CI, so they go back and buy more drugs to get to the level needed for a stiffer sentence. Here, if the government had Eric for conspiracy, why didn't they grab him when he committed the conspiracy and get him then. Instead Anna led him on and they worked up the case further entrapping Eric. Reichel raised that the jury didn't specifically state what federal property Eric targeted, but that the jury convicted and raised the issue of the special verdict form should have been appropriate at trial to clarify what the jury thought Eric targeted allegedly in his conspiracy. Persecutor Lapham said that Eric's target was the Insitute of Forest Genetics. At this point persecutor Lapham threw out that these were eco-terrorist targets. Lapham only use the eco-terrorist phrase this one time.

Reichel raised the issue that he's been in isolation for 2.5 yrs since his arrest and their is case law for reduction in sentencing because of the deprivation suffered because of this. Also pointed out that Eric is a high profile case and because he's been labeled a terrorist that he will face tough times while in jail. Cops raise this issue that they deserve a reduction in sentencing because their former law enforcement and they will face a tough time in incarceration being former pigs.

Eric's attorney raised the issued to the court that its known that Eric has a heart condition and that it's real. Eric's attorney reiterates what he wrote in his sentencing memo to the court. Persecutor says that the medical condition is speculative after speaking to some incompetent in his circles of people at the jail. Persecutor Lapham acknowledged the medical condition from April of 2007, but says it hasn't flared up since then for Eric. Sacramento County jail houses federal inmates and in recent years, the medical treatment of inmates has come under lots of scrutiny and a few lawsuits have been filed for lack of adequate basic medical care in the jail. Eric's attorney pointed out to the court that he wrote the court about Eric's medical condition in November of 2007 and that refutes persecutor Lapham's denial of Eric's heart condition being non-existent. Eric's attorney also stated the name of the person in charge of medical at the jail and said in open court that that doctor would indicate Eric's medical condition is real and case law supports consideration of this for a downward departure of the 20 year sentence.

Eric's attorney reiterated that Eric has family ties and that they all are present. Eric's family is allowed to address the judge a bit later in the proceeding.

Persecutor Lapham then compares Eric's alleged crime to that of the crime of conspiracy to blow up propane tanks by Jeff Patterson and what Patterson received for his crime with the terrorism enhancement of 293 months.

Persecutor Lapham than holds Eric's 5th amendment right to remain silent at trial and at the probation sentencing hearing against him. Judge says he won't hold the 5th amendment against Eric but that it limits the judges knowledge of who Eric is. I found this statement to be CYA. The judge was covering his ass and acknowledging the 5th amendment, but back doored in an attack on Eric for remaining silent at trial and at the Probation sentencing hearing per the advice of Eric's attorney. Eric's attorney points out that anything Eric says can be used against him should he be granted a new trial.

At this point persecutor Lapham then says that Eric isn't the peaceful person that the family knows and that he's changed and that he knows Eric to be a different person. The family is allowed to address the court shortly following the persecutor's statement that Eric's family doesn't know him. Eric's mom, dad and both sisters address the court.

Reichel points out to the court that 3 of the 4 family choose not to testify at trial regarding Eric's character because they didn't want to miss any of the trial. If someone is going to testify at trial, usually both sides will invoke the witness rule. IE..if your a witness, you can't watch the court proceedings until after you've testified. IE..Eric' family would have missed Eric's trial had they decided to testify during the defense's part of the trial. Meaning, they'd have missed 3/4ths of the trial. It was decided one sister would miss the trial, instead of the whole family.

Have mention about code or statute of 3553 discussion. Something about Eric's suggesting a 2 year wait? Unclear what this discussion was.

Judge then brings up this preposterous analogy that he's being asked to change the law and the level 6 enhancement. Says its not a rhetorical question he's posing to Eric's attorney. IE...there's the recommendation, but should he change the law and lower the category 6 classification to reduce Eric's sentence? Reichal didn't ask that, he points out that is a recommendation to be a level 6 terrorism enhancement. Judge says that it was congress's intention that this was a crime with the intent that its a one time offense regardless that Eric has no prior criminal history whatsoever. No criminal background, but conviction results in a mandated level 6 terrorism enhancement according to the judge.

Probation thought that a category 1 variance was appropriate for Eric. IE..Level 1 meaning he'd face less time.

Eric was asked if he wished to address the court. The judge was told that Eric didn't wish to address the court because he is appealing his trial conviction and this was per advice of counsel.

Judge England says the his ruling on the snitch Anna was way valid and even more so today. Judge said that he can't get out of his mind that Eric's talk of what he wanted to accomplish wasn't all just talk; commented about Eric's threatening FBI puppet Anna not being all talk. Judge says that the acquisitions of the materials by the four of them was beyond talk on Eric's part. Didn't mention on the record that the materials acquired by Eric were paid for by Anna and the DOJ bank account. No that's not entrapment silly rabbit. Judge England finds this to be an extremely serious offense and it overides Eric's peaceful nature.

Judge indicated that its a new world since 9/11/01. Judge says that he takes Eric's talk in the hours and hours of recordings he heard at trial and points to wherein Eric mentioned at some point, the discussion about collateral damage to be very serious.

Using the 1984 sentencing guidelines, the judge sentences Eric to 235 months. Says its the lower end and that the higher end of this conviction could have been 290 months. Goes on to say Eric will have 3 years probation and is ordered to pay $100 immediately and that he will have to register as an arson offender.

Eric's attorney made arguments that the judge's sentence of 235 months was based on a guideline and wasn't mandatory. Apparently the judge feels that this was a mandatory sentencing of a minimum of 235 months and that he found snitch Anna to be completely credible. I'd strongly urge people to read the declarations of two of the jurors filed for attachment to the defenses sentencing motion. They're attached below to this report.

Judge England, who bombed Judi Bari? Do you know who Hill and Knowlton is? Next time someone comes in your court for crimes against nature, I surely hope you don't selectively give them probation.

Maybe this draconian sentence will deter others for falling in love with a paid FBI snitch, but I doubt it. Go play Golf with your Bush cronies and bury your head in the sand on this one. After all Gore didn't win the election of the popular vote either.