At the November 9, 1992 hearings on Peltier's Appeal, Federal Prosecutor Lynn Crooks said, "We had a murder, we had numerous shooters, we knew who participated, but we did not have any direct evidence that one individual as opposed to another one pulled the trigger." Prosecutor Crook also went on to say that there was no evidence, no eye witnesses and nothing substantial to the Leonard Peltier to the deaths. (So what happened with the United State's theory that it is better that ten guilty men should escape rather than one innocent man go to prison?)
The court wrote in its 1986 decision, "We could have resolved this issue without much difficulty if the government had presented the case on the theory that he was an aider and abettor . . . but this is not the government's theory." On this point alone, Peltier should be given a new trial. (Klamath News, Vol. 8, Issue 8.)
It's been over seventeen years that Peltier has been in prison, and in that time his defense has disproved almost all of the government's claims. The defendant has shown that evidence was fabricated, witnesses were intimidated into making false statements, and yet the courts won't allow him to have a new trial. Of course, the government will not allow that to happen for fear of being exposed on all the injustices they have done to Leonard and the Ogallala people. It has been reported that the Appeals Judges had meetings with FBI agents while they were deliberating Leonard's last appeal. The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee is asking for an independent investigation into Leonard's case and the government's misconduct. So, there Leonard still sits! What happened to the Burden of Proof?
I don't believe for a second that they proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With anyone else, that Rule of Law would have stood. But, since Peltier was not only involved in the American Indian Movement, but also a male Indian on the land that the government wanted, none of the rules of law applied.
President Clinton realized this miscarriage of Justice in the Leonard Peltier case, but I don't think that this is the reason he spoke on it. I think it was more on account of Bill Clinton was seeking the American Indian vote. So was it just another one of those campaign promises? Was it just another trick to play on the Indian people's feelings? What ever it was, President Clinton did state something truthful in that sentence, which was that, "the evidence was not substantial;" and he did promise Peltier a new trial. He also said Peltier would be a free man, but Peltier's still in prison; made an example to the rest of us Indians as to what the government can and can't do. Apparently, there isn't anything the government can't and won't do.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2004
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited