FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 27, 2023
#StopCopCity Activists Respond to Georgia Attorney General’s Motion to Criminalize Thought Itself
Judge Grants Motion to Seal Exhibit Claimed to Be Tortuguita’s Journal After Defense Lawyers Call Use of Unauthenticated, Potentially Irrelevant, Inflammatory, and Inadmissible Document Against Dozens of RICO Defendants “Highly Improper”
ATLANTA, GA – Georgia Deputy Attorney General John Fowler filed a motion on November 15 to admit what is described as personal writings from Manuel Paez-Teran, also known as Tortuguita, as primary evidence for the indiscriminate prosecution of 61 activists under Georgia RICO statutes. Since Fowler’s filing, defense lawyers filed an emergency motion to seal, calling the Attorney General’s publication of the “unauthenticated, potentially irrelevant, inflammatory, and inadmissible document” unnecessary and “highly improper.” The defense motion to seal was heard and granted on Wednesday, November 22nd by Fulton County Superior Court Judge K. Adams.
Lawyers representing RICO defendants have argued that relevance is still an important hurdle for the state to overcome in using Tortuguita’s journal against dozens of RICO defendants. Specifically, lawyers are questioning the relevance of Tortuguita’s journal to the pending RICO cases and the specific actions of defendants.
Elizabeth Taxel, the Director of Criminal Defense Practicum at University of Georgia who was a public defender in DeKalb County for 10 years, called the Georgia Attorney General’s filing unprecedented. “The motion’s very premise – asking the judge to make a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence – underscores the uncertainty of the diary’s admissibility,” said Taxel. “Despite this uncertainty, the Attorney General makes this very intentional yet legally unnecessary decision to include the entire diary – writings that lie at the very heart of our sense of privacy – as an exhibit in its public filing.”
Much of the journal is believed to have been written well before Tortuguita began participating in the occupation of the Weelaunee forest. The state’s motion chose to highlight comments made in the journal from April 2021, yet it is well documented that the Weelaunee forest occupation did not begin for another six months, and that no evidence suggests Tortuguita participated in the occupation until sometime in 2022. Furthermore, no content in the journal indicates explicit planning of, or involvement in, any criminal activity regarding opposition to Cop City.
Defense lawyers claim that the hearsay rule should apply in determining whether to admit Tortuguita’s journal as evidence, since the author is no longer able to authenticate their words. Lawyers are entitled under the Sixth Amendment to ask a witness clarifying questions in court about their testimony. Even if the state argues for an exception to the hearsay rule, defense lawyers say the same party responsible for the death of Tortuguita–the reason for the exception–should not be allowed to use their unauthenticated testimony in a criminal prosecution.
“The motion also presupposes the diary’s authenticity, includes fundamental misunderstandings about certain hearsay exceptions, and flawed logic about the meaning and intentions of people’s private writings,” continued Taxel. “The motion also attempts to capitalize on a hearsay exception: witness unavailability, despite the State being the cause of Tortuguita’s unavailability to testify as a witness.”
The state has historically sought to use activists’ personal writings as evidence in their political prosecution. In 1972, prosecutors sought to include Angela Davis’s personal journal as evidence in her prosecution on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and kidnapping, claiming that the journal established her relationship with those directly involved in the murder itself, that her documented relationships served as proof of involvement in criminal activity. A jury ultimately acquitted Davis of all charges.
“What the state is doing is plainly disgusting,” said defense attorney Surinder K. Chadha Jimenez, Esq. who represents one of the RICO defendants. “They are further victimizing [Tortuguita’s] family,” continued Chadha Jimenez. “Whether or not the diary is admissible is up the Court to determine, but it was not necessary for the diary to be included in a motion and published for the whole world, including potential jurors, to see. What the State should do is cut a check and give some closure to [their] parents who are suffering as [Tortuguita’s] character is dragged through the mud.”
Activists are deeply concerned about the ramifications of the Attorney General’s motion. They see this as an attempt by the state to use Tortuguita’s words as justification for their senseless murder at the hands of police and a means to criminalize a social movement that continues to grow in popularity and support.
Background: Tortuguita was a non-binary activist who participated in the occupation of the Weelaunee Forest in resistance to the planned construction of Cop City at the Old Atlanta Prison Farm and a large soundstage in Intrenchment Creek Park. On January 18th, 2023, five Georgia State Patrol (GSP) officers opened fire on Tortuguita’s tent in Intrenchment Creek Park, killing them. One autopsy recorded 57 bullet wounds on Tortuguita’s body and indicated they may have been shot while sitting cross-legged with their hands up or, rather, in a surrendering position. In the officers’ use of force report, GSP admits to initially escalating the situation by firing pepper bullets into the tent after Tortuguita refused to exit.
District Attorney pro tempore for the Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit George Christian announced in October that he would not pursue any charges against the officers involved, claiming Tortuguita’s murder was “objectively reasonable.” The statement indicated that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation would not publicly release any evidence supporting this claim, citing the ongoing RICO and Domestic Terrorism cases levied against protesters resisting Cop City.
# # #
Leave a Reply