SLC Newspapers and the Plyg Wars

[Media] It's been some time since Salt Lake City's two daily newspapers have fought a legitimate war over a breaking story. Truth is, there are many days when neither the Deseret News nor The Salt Lake Tribune is distinguishable in written content or even photos and graphics.

Best example of this: The LDS Church's twice-yearly General Conference. The Tribune often covers the event with every bit of vigor and yes, pandering, as the DN, and it can't even claim ownership by the Mormon Church.

The two papers' coverage of the ongoing mess-o-polygamy in Texas is a shining example of cutthroat competition at its best. In today's coverage of the FLDS child custody saga, the DN got a big scoop over the Trib. By securing copies of e-mails from Washington County officials, the DN was able to publish details of government "dossiers" on certain creepy FLDS leaders, who get a kick out of stalking their perceived enemies and think nothing of threatening them with a little thing called "blood atonement."

The Trib could only follow meekly, with a tepid version of the Associated Press story, which is a rewrite of the DN. In the next few hours news junkies can count on a piece on the Trib Web site with the byline of resident plyg expert, Brooke Adams. Today's morning news budget meeting at the Tribune office would have been a lively exchange among editors. Probably went something like this:

Editor 1: "How did we miss that story?"
Editor 2: "Uh, dunno. But Brooke says we'll have our own story soon. And it will be better than theirs."

Both papers have had at least one full-time reporter and photographer encamped in and around El Dorado, Texas since the initial raid of the YFZ ranch in early April. The DN has gotten the lion's share of periodic scoops, including exclusive photos of the first reunions last week between polygamous mothers and their children. Trent Nelson, an excellent Trib photographer, got downright depressed about missing those pictures. He wrote from the gut about losing to the DN on his Tribune blog, Fly on the Wall. Actually, Nelson has been doing the best documentation all along of back story to the FLDS drama. He captures the adrenaline rush of covering breaking news, while blending in the moments of sheer boredom and frustration of waiting for the next news conference or lucky break. And if nothing else, there's always a comment or two, with photos, of West Texas culture or horrible diner food.

It hasn't been this interesting watching the mainstream media lose bladder control over a story since Elizabeth Smart went missing in 2002. (Holly Mullen)

The Weasel on Polygamy

[News-ish] Finally, a report we can all trust on polygamy, courtesy Pauly Shore (you may remember him from such cinematic milestones as Bio-Dome and Jury Duty):



(Bill Frost)

Book 'Em, Texas!

[FLDS Update] In addressing whether the 460-plus children taken from the Yearning for Zion FLDS ranch have been abused, is anyone considering their intellectual neglect?

Texas officials tell public school administrators the FLDS kids taken into custody nearly a month ago have had no exposure to children's books. All books, in fact, were reportedly removed from areas where the children were being held after the raid on the ranch.

This audio clip from NPR's All Things Considered last night addresses how Texas public school officials might cope with the flood of FLDS kids who will eventually enter the school system. The children have been home schooled and isolated from the outside world. Administrators don't know what accommodations they might need to make. They say they want to be culturally sensitive.

So, said one of the administrators, they will have to examine how and when to expose the kids to books.

I'd say any childhood that lacks exposure to this book, or this one, or this one is just plain neglectful.

(Holly Mullen)

Uh, Where Are All the Men?

[Plyg-busters] It's day 14 since Texas authorities raided the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, taking 400-plus children of polygamist parents in the process.

Tomorrow, a custody hearing unprecedented in its scope will take place in nearby San Angelo to determine whether any or all the kids should enter foster care while the state continues its investigation into child abuse allegations.

And in all the reams of news stories, miles of broadcast video and blog postings on the topic, I've wondered all along: Where are the men?

If everything is so spit-polished clean and safe at the YFZ, if women (scary Stepford Wives that they are on camera) are free to come and go as they please, if the children live in wholesome goodness, if all of this is true--where are the men to say so?

Real men who have nothing to hide would defend their women, protect their children and stand up for themselves. But they don't. What kind of man would pimp his wife/wives in the way these polygamists have for the international news media, and not absorb at least some of the scrutiny themselves? Must be some kind of special priesthood that allows these big men to hide so expertly behind their women. (Holly Mullen)

Sweet Spirits

[Polygamy Fallout] The plyg raid at El-do-RAY-do drove home the fact that most polygamists, unfortunately, aren't as hot as Bill Paxton and Chloë Sevigny. Or Mary Kay Place, for that matter.

In fact, remembering back to the Tom Green case, it seems he got reasonably lucky playing the wife lottery, considering the poofy-haired alternatives.

But not as lucky as Jesus, apparently. Anybody remember this pic from--I don't know, Sunday School? (Where do these pictures come from? I just know that this one seems familiar, as if I had seen it several times in childhood.) Really it's beautifully done, if a little hokey.

At the time, I think we all figured those hotties hanging on his every word were "disciples"--but, now, it's only too obvious what's really going on.

Obviously, Wife 1 is the willowy blue-sashed number standing behind, saying, "OK, that's enough now, Jesus. Let's go home." That red-sashed pumpkin on the right appears to have spotted something amusing happening just to the left of the frame, but we can see what he's in the mood for. Brunette? Pink sash? Mmm-hmmm. (Brandon Burt)

Breaking Legal Ground?

[FLDS Raid] The towns of Eldorado and San Angelo, Tex., are swarming with reporters after state authorities last week swept into the YFZ Ranch and removed 416 children of FLDS polygamists.

One of the best analysis pieces I've seen yet came last night on KSL television. John Hollenhorst reported that Texas law enforcement and social service authorities are fully aware of the grand scale of this child protection action--the largest ever in Texas. They're doing so because, based on interviews with children so far and other evidence sought through detailed search warrants, authorities believe the entire FLDS culture thrives--exists, even--on a foundation of routinely abusing children.

The theory is this: Young girls are taught from the cradle to submit to the demands of their husbands. Their marriages are arranged, and typically, a much-older husband "grooms" the young girl from an early age for his sexual gratification. FLDS boys don't fare much better. They learn from childhood to use girls and women in the same manner as their fathers and other men they are taught to emulate.

Texas officials have hopes of rooting out child abuse that is deeply ingrained within FLDS culture. It will be a huge legal challenge; as of this moment, attorneys for several of the men at the Eldorado compound are arguing their civil rights were violated during the raid and continue to be ignored. Read Hollenhorst's intriguing take on the legal maneuvering here.

What do you think? Is the Texas approach to breaking down an entire culture appropriate? Does it make legal sense? Is the FLDS system so morally bankrupt it should be eradicated?

(Holly Mullen)

Warren Jeffs Trial: The Verdict

[News] St George, UT - Warren Jeffs has been found guilty. He has been convicted on two counts of Rape as an Accomplice.

A few minutes after 2:15 p.m. yesterday (Tuesday, Sept. 25), the jury was led back into the courtroom. Affirming that they had, in fact, reached a verdict, jury foreman David Finch (a 64 year-old retiree) handed the verdict form to the bailiff, who in turn handed it to Judge James Shumate. Shumate studied the form, then added the date and his signature, and handed it to the court clerk, who was asked to read it. She said, "In the matter of State v. Warren Steed Jeffs…"

Gerald Munk, 36, St. George City Employee: “Basically she didn’t have a choice. The simple fact of the matter was her age, and the law. Warren Jeffs was her only ticket out of the marriage… Jeffs was a prophet that told his followers that he would take away all of their choice, all of their responsibility, and place them in their marriages. He did not give them any alternatives.”

Garry Lynn Maxwell, 40, Draftsman/Civil Engineer: “There were laws that were broken, and [what mattered was] how Mr. Jeffs led to the breaking of those laws. Not what [Elissa Wall] would get [in a civil suite]… Obviously sex occurred. She was underage. She was illegally married. It was against the law.”

Heather Danielle Newkirk, 32, House Wife/Massage Therapist: [Asked what the jury’s impressions of FLDS culture are] “Very interesting, we got quite an education. It made me grateful for my husband… I’m happy to have the freedom and choices that I do.”

Diedre Shaw, 32, House Wife: [Asked if the case is about religion] “No. But how can you separate it?”

Listening to the jurors explain how they reached their verdict, they kept coming reiterating the key terms of the trial. Enticement. Recklessness. Consent. It was interesting to hear how these words weighted on their minds while they were locked in the jury room, and how methodical they were in reaching their decision “There were a lot of things to consider, that we had to factor into the whole picture,” said Heather Danielle Newkirk.

They discussed at length, which testimony made the greatest impression on them. Almost all of them cited Rebecca Musser, Elissa Wall’s sister, who denounced Jeffs’s harsh treatment of his followers from the stand, pointing and jabbing her finger in his direction. The jurors also seemed to distrust Allen Steed, Wall’s former husband. They found his standing in witness box, as opposed to sitting, to be strange, and they were troubled by the discrepancies in the timeline he provided of his and Wall’s sexual relationship during the prosecution’s cross examination. (Those discrepancies seemed minor to me to me at the time, and I failed to mention them in my analysis of Steed’s testimony.) A reporter asked what they thought of the fact that Steed has never been charged with the rape in question, to which Rachel Karimi – 28, House Wife - said, “That was not our concern here. Our concern was Mr. Jeffs.”

When the testimony of several FLDS members, solicited by the defense to shed light on their cultural norms, was brought up, the jurors kind of hesitated. “Well, they were consistent,” said Newkirk. But those accounts didn’t lessen the impact of the Wall sisters’ testimony in the jury’s mind. One of the defense’s FLDS witness seems to have even hurt their case. Jennie Pipkin testified that Jeffs had released her from her marriage after she complained of being sexual molested by her husband, which was intended to show, contrary to Wall’s story, forced sex was cause for an immediate release form marriage. But the jury interpreted it as only a demonstration of Jeffs’s power to release women from their husbands, and in no way a contradiction of Wall’s testimony.

The more the jurors talked, the more that it became clear that all of them, even those who had initial doubts, had adopted the basic premise of the prosecution’s legal theory right from the start. The defense’s theory – with its doubts about the appropriateness of the charges and the motivations of key witnesses, and its talk of religious persecution and the state’s political motives – didn’t seem to penetrate their thinking very deeply. That is not to suggest that they were unduly biased, or that their verdict was not reached in good faith; there is absolutely nothing that would suggest that. What it means is that the jury saw a crime committed, and was convinced by the prosecution that the ultimate blame rested with Warren Jeffs.

“[Jeffs] held all the keys to release her from that marriage,” says Benjamin Coulter – 26, retail salesman – articulating the prosecution’s case perfectly, “He was the only one that could have told her that she didn’t have to be in that marriage, and that there would be no consequences.”

Brock Belnap, Washington County Attorney: “I feel it is a just verdict… that reaffirms my faith in the jury system. I will always be grateful for the courage of Elissa Wall, who withstood attacks on her character and credibility with dignity and honor. We now have other things to do. More cases pending. We are going to go back, and go to work.”

Elissa Wall, Complaining Witness in State v. Jeffs: “I still have tender feelings for the FLDS community. I pray they will stand back and reexamine what they have been led to believe. To the girls, know that you are created equal. That you do not have to surrender your rights or spiritual sovereignty.”

Richard Holm, Former FLDS Member and Hildale City Councilman: “Warren Jeffs is an opportunist, who say an opportunity to take power and glory. He is a wolf who dressed himself in sheep’s cloths, which he used to hurt those around him. He is a victim of hi own desires…” [Asked if he has any malice towards Jeffs for tearing apart his family] “I’ve tried to get over that. I’m relieved I didn’t have to testify… There is a power base [in the FLDS community] that will carry on though.”

Gary Ingles, Special Investigator for the Mojave County Attorney: “You can have a religion that says you can violate the law. But when you do violate the law, we will come after you.”

Elaine Tyler, President of the Hope Organization: “I’m on Cloud Nine. I hope this points to a change. You can’t force little girls to marry; that is child abuse.”

Statement from Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General: “This verdict is a victory for the many victims who have been hurt by Warren Jeffs and have been too afraid to speak out. Everyone should now know that no one is above the law, religion is not an excuse for abuse and every victim has a right to be heard… Today’s verdict is just the beginning of a long journey to seek justice for all.”

Walter Bugden, Defense Attorney for Warren Jeffs: “No comment.”

On the first full day of jury deliberations, Monday, Sept. 24, the jury informed Judge Shumate at about 2:45 that they had reached a decision on the first count of the indictment against Jeffs, but not on the second count, and that they did not believe further deliberations were needed.

The initial split on the charges was a little odd, because the distinction between the two was only really made during the prosecution’s closing argument. You may recall that the first charge is linked to a rape that is alleged to have occurred between April 23 (the date of Elissa Wall’s wedding to Allen Steed, where Jeffs told them to ‘go forth, and multiply’), and May 12 of 2001. The second charge is for a rape committed between May 13, 2001 (when Wall went to Jeffs for counseling, and he told her to ‘give herself mind, body and soul’) and mid 2003, when Wall left the FLDS community.

The split jury was five to three with Diedre Shaw, Gerald Munk, and Heather Danielle Newkirk not ready to vote to convict on that second count. Later, they said the broad timeline for that alleged rape troubled them, and they wondered if Wall’s ‘sugaring up’ of Steed was a contradiction of her claims. “It was really hard,” Shaw said, “I though fists were going to start flying.”

Shumate ordered the jury to go back into their deliberations, to review the jury instructions, and to take more time to try to find away around their impasse.

But outside, the media was hungry for a verdict. So much so that an innocent miscommunication among a few reporters and photographers led to several news outlets declaring a guilty verdict on their websites. Those headlines were down within the hour, and at 8:10 the jury was sent home for the night.

There has been a lot of speculation as to the ‘event’ that caused one juror to be excused Tuesday morning, but later many other jurors would credit the selected alternate, Rachel Karimi, with breaking the deadlock. Those who had questioned Wall’s ‘sugaring up’ began to see it more as a coping mechanism as opposed to a demonstration of her will. And that led them back to one of those key words, enticement.

*****

After the verdict was read, the jury was excused, and sentencing issues were addressed. When Shumate excused the courtroom, the FLDS member in attendance, all of whom had remained stone-faced the whole time, rushed past the cameras outside, and into their cars.

Jeffs had been stone-faced too, not showing a hint of emotion when he was found guilty. But as his lawyers discussed possible dates for a sentencing hearing, Jeffs’s eyes began to drop, his moth hung open a bit, and he fidgeted slightly.

Daniel Medwed, Professor of Criminal Procedure, University of Utah: “I’m a little surprised by the verdict, but I can see that many people in this community think that Warren Jeffs is morally reprehensible, and that his actions strike a cord with people… In the end, the prosecution swung for the fences and hit a home run. They charged Warren Jeffs, not with some relatively minor crime, but with a first-degree felony. And they were successful.”

Ken Driggs, Civil Rights Attorney and FLDS Historian: “I thought the state’s case was weak, and that it was a stretch. There are many, obvious issues that will be taken up in the appellate system, particularly the issue of whether Utah’s rape statute is intended to cover this type of conduct. I understand that the jury was greatly affected by the girls age. The issue of underage brides has been around in the FLDS community for a while, and it seems to have picked up under Warren Jeffs – it’s almost like he was sticking his finger in the eye of law enforcement. But ultimately all of the first amendment issues about freedom or religion are not going to protect you from this type of conduct with minors.”

Warren Jeffs has been escorted back to the Purgatory Correctional Facility, where he will await the sentencing phase of his trial. His lawyers have requested an extension beyond the maximum 45 days allowed by law, so that they can prepare a pre-sentencing report, which will likely include a psycho-sexual evaluation. He will likely still stand trial in Arizona, facing charges of Conspiracy to Commit Child Abuse and Incest charges, but the Mojave County Attorney has not yet determined if and when that will happen. Jeffs’s lawyers are almost certain to begin working on his appeal, on a myriad of issues, as soon as possible.

Earlier today, Washington County filed rape charges against Allen Steed.

That is what we know the day after Warren Jeffs’s conviction. There are still big questions: What will happen to the FLDS community in his absence? Will more of his followers flee Hildale and Colorado City for Texas, Canada, and parts unknown? What actions against other FLDS members, and members of other polygamist clans, will this lead to? What will be the political ramifications across the state?

Those questions, and many others, will surely be answered in due time. (Louis Godfrey)

Warren Jeffs Trial: Utah Has Gone Crazy

[News] St. George, UT - The prosecution presented its closing argument yesterday in the form of chemistry class-like diagram. On a large piece of poster board (positively low-tech compared to the defense's flashy Power Points) Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap had flow charted the exact, technical elements of both "rape" and "accomplice," and the mental state - intentioned, knowing and reckless – required of the perpetrator, Warren Jeffs, needed to marry the two.

“Warren Jeffs would not have arranged for a ceremony three hours away, for an illegal marriage if he did not intend for Elissa Wall (the victim, whose name has finally been made public) to have sex with Allen Steed,” Belnap said. And again and again, he fell back on a familiar refrain, “There was no consent,” to confirm the gut reaction that something very wrong had occurred.

When Belnap took his seat, Walter Bugden stood for the defense, and unloaded both proverbial barrels. He aggressively dissected the prosecutions interpretations of statute, often referring to the lawyers by name. Bugden viciously questioned the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly Wall. He exhibited a medical chart (written up by Jane Blackmore, a midwife who testified for the prosecution) that indicated Wall might have engaged in drug abuse. Bugden also detailed the terms of a settlement proposal in Wall’s law suite against the FLDS Church, under which both she and her attorneys would receive significant land holdings and cash. (Wall’s attorney, Greg Hoole, said that Bugden had misrepresented the terms of the settlement agreement, and called the drug use accusations ‘preposterous.’)

But book ending Bugden’s assault on the mechanics of the prosecution’s case, there were odes to the presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and talk of a religion-targeted, overzealous prosecution. “This case is about religion. That is why they are all here [pointing to the media in the gallery]. But this case is not State v. FLDS Culture, it is State v. Warren Jeffs,” Bugden said. “The state could have charged Mr. Jeffs with the appropriate crime – solemnizing an unlawful marriage – but … Utah has gone crazy, for political reasons. So they dropped a nuclear bomb on the FLDS, and charged Warren Jeffs with rape.”

In his rebuttal, Belnap struck back, implying that Bugden was saying what was necessary for his client’s case, but that his statements did not constitute evidence. He then affirmed the core themes of his earlier statement: “These are not theories. They are the law, and if you apply them, you have to find Warren Jeffs guilty.”

But outside the courtroom, there are doubts. Representatives from the Arizona Attorney General’s office were on hand today, and while they will press ahead with there case against Jeffs regardless of the verdict, there demeanor suggested they were at least preparing for the possibility that they will not have a Utah conviction to base there case on.

But now the only doubts that matter are the ones the eight men and women in the jury room have, and whether those doubts are reasonable.

*****

Allen Steed’s testimony was the stuff of country songs. The former husband of Elissa Wall, Steed is said to have committed the rape that Warren Jeffs is charged with accomplicing. But Steed has never been charged with that crime, let alone convicted of it, and seeing him on the stand the other day, it’s not hard to see why. Steed, standing rather than sitting in the witness box, was soft-spoken and painfully awkward as he talked about his rocky, short-lived marriage. It was hard to see him commanding obedience from any woman, even a fourteen year-old. “I like to think I was in charge [in his marriage],” Steed said, “But I know I wasn’t.”

“It shows that the Attorney General’s office wanted Jeffs,” says Daniel Medwed, a professor of criminal law at Utah’s S.J. Quinny Law School. “And that Jeffs may be ultimately more to blame for what happened.”

What happened is still an open question. Steed’s version of events almost completely contradicts Wall’s testimony. He maintains that he never forced her to have sex, and he does not remember her weeping uncontrollably on their wedding day. The only thing he did confirm was an incident where he exposed himself to her in a public park a few weeks after they were married. “In my clumsy way, I thought it would move things along,” Steed said. “I’m not very good at communicating.”

But the he said/she said may even be beside the point. Wall has let it be known that she will not testify against Steed willingly (she has even referred to him as a ‘victim’ in the past), and the police have never previously interviewed Steed about these incidents. The question is, what will the lack of a conviction in the principal crime at issue do to the accomplice case against Jeffs?

“Under Utah’s Accomplice Statute, there is no need for the state to prove that the crime in question happend. They just need to prove Jeffs acted criminally recklessly in the matter,” says Medwed. “But [in the mind of the jurors], the lack of a rape conviction likely helps Jeffs.”

From the beginning, the defense has tried to get the jury to doubt that a rape ever actually occurred, Even if the law allows for such a leap, their theory almost certainly goes, the jury just won’t be able to find Jeffs an accomplice an act they doubt happened. Towards the end of his testimony, Steed talked about how he felt the day he found out Wall had been seeing another man – her current husband, Lamont Barlow. “Weakness flared up. I had a desire to get my gun. But I knew I couldn’t, that it wasn’t right,” Steed said, and his shoulders slumped. You couldn’t help but just feel sorry for the guy.

(In the interest of full disclosure: Allen Steed’s lawyer, Jim Bradshaw, has acted as my legal council in the past.)

*****

What goes through the mind of a ‘prophet?’ In order to lead a fundamentalist community in the way that Warren Jeffs led (and in spirit, still leads) the FLDS, to have people believe that you alone can receive God’s true revelation, do you have to believe it you yourself?

This has been one of the ongoing subplots of the whole Jeffs affair, and has been lurking in the background throughout his trial. The nature of his prophethood in the FLDS Church – is it purely political or ‘divinely ordained’ – first came up in a preliminary hearing earlier this year when Jeffs tried to pass a mysterious note to Judge Shumate, but was stopped by his lawyers before he could. A Deseret News photographer was able to snap a picture of the folded piece of paper in Jeffs’s hands. A few days later, D-News reporter Ben Winslow wrote up the results of an independent analysis the newspaper had done of the photograph, and it’s conclusion that the note was Jeffs confessing to not being a true prophet. (The defense tried to get a contempt order for Winslow when he refused to reveal the source of the analysis, but the Judge Shumate quashed it.)

Flash forward to the trial, where much of the prosecution’s theory has rested on the idea that Jeffs essentially usurped his father Rulon’s position as head of the FLDS Church around 2001, after Rulon had suffered two strokes, and that he used that ecclesiastical authority to accomplice Wall’s rape. The prosecution has had to walk a fine line in presenting putting forward this argument, because much of the testimony to that affect constitutes inadmissible hearsay.

But in the testimony of Wall’s sister, Rebecca Musser, her vantage point as Rulon’s wife allowed her to describe more and more appointments with the prophet being taken by Jeffs (who was technically First Counselor at the time), and that he was making more ecclesiastical decisions. After Rulon’s death, Musser described the harsh treatment Jeffs inflicted on his father’s former wives, including marrying them off to other men in the community. When Musser refused, Jeffs told her that he would ‘break her, that he would make her a good [submissive] wife.’ (Court documents on the anticipated, but never heard, testimony of Jethro Barlow attested to a more ‘authoritarian’ feeling taking over the FLDS when Jeffs became prophet.)

So was being prophet purely about power for Jeffs? Is it an elaborate sham that only Jeffs, and those before him, are in on? I wrote the Ben Winslow yesterday, to see if he had any thoughts on this. “There is just no way to answer that question,” he replied. “There is just no way to speculate about what is going in Warren Jeffs’ head.” (Louis Godfrey)

Warren Jeffs Trial: The Shrill Circus

[News] St. George, UT - The presentation of evidence in the case of State v. Warren Steed Jeffs has ended; the prosecution and the defense have both rested their cases. With the jury to begin deliberating on Jeffs' fate Friday, it interesting that so little of the evidence or testimony they to consider involved Jeffs directly. Befitting of his presence in the courtroom – a lack of sudden movement coupled with a seemingly unblinking stare; the perfect embodiment of the cool monotone heard in his taped sermons – witnesses have talked of Jeffs as if he were a specter in their lives, more than a flesh-and-blood actor.

In the highly emotional testimony, JM (a pseudonym for the victim, used to identify her in civil court documents) spoke of Warren Jeffs as a constant authority figure in her life, first as a teacher, then a counselor, and finally as the prophet. According to her, not only was he the one who arranged and presided over her marriage at age 14, but he was also the embodiment of all the pressures and controls of FLDS society.

In some tense cross-examination, the defense tried to impeach not only JM’s memory of the events she described (some of which conflict with earlier statements she made), but to show her as a feisty strong-willed young woman, who had options and influences concerning her arranged marriage beyond Warren Jeffs’s control.

Essentially, two portraits were painted. The first was of a frightened little girl, forced into a marriage she vocalized opposed, but was given no choice but to ‘keep sweet’ even as she sobbed in a bathroom and downed whole bottles of Tylenol in a bathroom after her wedding ceremony. The second was of a feisty young woman, capable of ‘sugaring up,’ or using sex, to win favor with her new husband, who had no problem challenging the assertions of a seasoned defense attorney, and who has a potentially lucrative law site pending against the United Effort Plan (the financial trust of the FLDS Church).

Ultimately, the jury does not need to decide which portrait is the real JM, but what traits would have even been possible inside FLDS society.

And at that point, FLDS culture went on trial. Through a string of witness, the defense and prosecution would haggle over the final points of FLDS doctrine, marriage covenants (particularly the line ‘be fruitful and multiply), and common phrases such as ‘bodies, boots and britches to your husbands.’

The prosecution’s final witness, JM’s sister Rebecca, acted as the state’s de facto FLDS expert. Rebecca had been a teacher at Alta Academy (a private FLDS high school, where Jeffs was the principal), and a wife of Rulon Jeffs, the defendant’s fathe. In her testimony, she reasserted her sister’s understanding of FLDS teachings - from Home Economics lessons on wifely duties, to the implied instructions in FLDS marriage vows. All of which, according to Rebecca, let a girl know that submission in sexual matters is expected of her. On his cross-examination, Walter Bugden continually insisted, “That is your interpretation.”

The defense, for there part, called about half a dozen FLDS members to present much more liberal interpretations of concepts like ‘obedience’ and ‘submission.’ Most of the women who testified were employed independently, and all of the husbands spoke of their wives as equal partners in marriage. One woman, Jeannie Pipkin, testified that she was released form her marriage after she complained to Jeffs about repeated, unwelcomed sexual touching.

It was strange to watch both the sides quiz witness about a culture concepts that they only know second hand, looking for only the interpretations that will support the understanding they want the jury to have. When the jury deliberates, they will be considering the criminality of FLDS culture as much as they will Jeffs’s actions. Ironically, if they can see Jeffs as his followers do, as a true prophet who embodies and enforces the word of God, they may be more likely to convict then if they just see him as an odd, vaguely creepy-looking man at the other end of the courtroom.

*****

Immediately before it closed its case Tuesday morning, the prosecution played one last audiotape. Not of Warren Jeffs sermonizing, though; the voice heard was that of Sam Barlow, an elder in the FLDS Church. The recording is of a speech Barlow made in a secret priesthood meeting in 2001, and was taped by his son Jethro, who had a recording device hidden in his shoe.

In his speech, Barlow talks of a ‘conspiracy’ by the governments of Utah, Arizona and the United States to put a stop to FLDS practices, such as ‘underage’ marriages. What is disturbing about the tape is not that Barlow has such a keen knowledge of the politics outside his community (he correctly predicts that then-Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano would win the Governorship in 2002), but the utter contempt Barlow shows for core democratic and judicial principles. At no point in the tape does Barlow call for violence, but it is not hard to hear an urging towards some type of radical subversion. Barlow repeatedly says they do not recognize governmental laws, but only ‘the laws of God.’

When the tape ended, someone in the courtroom – never identified by the bailiffs or the media – muttered “Amen.”

*****

When Tara Isaacson and Walter Bugden walked into court Monday morning, they walked briskly past the small gaggle of media. But there was one question, yelled by a TV reporter that Isaacson couldn’t quite stay silent on. “Ms. Isaacson,” he said, “As a well educated woman how can you defend a man that denies education to women?” With just the slightest turn of the head in acknowledgment, Isaacson replied, “You have a nice day.”

It is not just the press on the front steps of the 5th District Courthouse whose tone is approaching shrill. Last week on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly questioned the fitness of Judge Shumate to hear this case due to supposed discrepancies in sentencing child sex offenders, and that Shumate once referred to polygamy as an act of ‘civil disobedience.’ Over at the New Republic, Michelle Cottle called the defense’s arguments “obscene,” and that if Jeffs does not spend the rest of his life in prison, “There is no justice in the world.”

Well, then. I guess not all verdicts require careful deliberation. (Louis Godfrey)

Warren Jeffs Trail: Day 2

[News] St. George, UT - "Please stop. I don't know what you're doing." These words come from the alleged rape victim, the rape that Warren Jeffs allegedly facilitated, as quoted by Washington County Prosecutor Brock Belnap in his opening statement yesterday. The victim, who by court order is not to be named in any media accounts, claims that she was forced to have sex by her husband in order to consummate their marriage, which was arranged and performed by Jeffs. It bears repeating that she was only 14 years old.

With a jury of seven women and five men seated, the trial of Warren Jeffs began with the traditonal opening statements by both sides. For the prosecution and defense, these statements are a chance to present a narrative, to define what the themes of the trial will be.

So, what is the Warren Jeffs trial really all about?

According to the prosecution, it is about the unquestionable position of authority that Warren Jeffs occupied in the victim’s life, and that through his writings, sermons, and private counseling Jeffs made it clear that the victim was duty-bound to submit to her husband. In both their opening statement and the first portion of the victim’s testimony (more about which will be posted after it concludes today), the prosecution aimed to create a portrait of a frightened girl, who knew what was expected of her, and had no real way to refuse.

The prosecution showed pictures of her being fitted for her wedding dress the night before her celestial marriage was performed, and the marriage bed that was decorated for her and her husband with flowers in the shape of a heart. Later they played audio recordings of Jeffs talking about the duties of wives to their husbands. The FLDS members in attendance – several men in dark wool suites and two women in pioneer-era dresses – barley flinched as this evidence of their secretive world was aired.

The defense on the other hand wants the jury to question if a rape ever took place, let alone if Warren Jeffs was an accomplice to it. Tara Isaacson, combining Power Point and a hint of theatricality, opened the defenses case by arguing that the testimony of the victim and the teachings of Jeffs, if fairly evaluated, show no real evidence of a crime. Further more, Isaacson said the defense will attempt to show, through dozens of witnesses, that within the norms of FLDS culture, arranged marriages at a young age are common, and do not constitute rape.

This hints at, but falls short of, comments made about the case by Isaacson’s co-council Walter Bugden prior to the trail. “It is nothing short of the state of Utah condemning a culturally different religion. It is a continuation of 165 years of intolerance,” Bugden said, as quoted in The Spectrum. He went on to talk about arranged marriages of young people are common around the world, and that Jeffs acted in a way that many religious leaders do.

Curious about this quote, I e-mailed Bugden a few days ago asking, “Where is the limit? Not just in this case, but more broadly, where is the limit on freedom of religious practice? To what point can a modern, pluralistic society tolerate religious practices that, arguably, deprive the individual of their own free exercise?”

I never got a reply from Mr. Bugden, which was to be expected. Mr. Bugden has refused several interview requests pertaining to the Jeffs case, and is known for being media shy.

But, maybe, he didn’t reply because there is no good answer. And Maybe that’s what this trial is really about.

*****

A little over an hour before the trial opened, Judge Shuate heard the final pre-trial motion on the limiting of evidence, one with an interesting Constitutional question imbedded in it.

The defense had asked the court to exclude an audio recording of Jeffs sermonizing that had come into the possession of the prosecution. It is not clear where the tape (which has not been made available to the public) came from, although it was supposedly recorded in August of 2006, possibly after Jeffs’s arrest. In the excerpted portions from court documents, Jeffs talks about a 2003 revelation, in which he say a government conspiracy to criminalize and prosecute his work and the work of his father (Rulon Jeffs) concerning Celestial Marriage.

The Defense argued that not only was this tape irrelevant and highly prejudicial, it was also protected speech, as it was in the form of a religious communiqué of sorts. This definitely piqued the interest of both Shumate and the prosecution.

The prosecution said they were not sure if they were actually going to enter the tape into evidence, but maintained that it did have relevance, and wanted to maintain the right to use it.

Shumate said that, for the moment, he thought the tape’s prejudicial impact would outweigh its relevance, but he would be willing to revisit it if appropriate during the trial. Thus the tape is temporarily quashed. When the prosecution asked if the judge had ruled on the Constitutional question, Shumate said it was possible for him to avoid it, so he was going to do just that. (Loius Godfrey)

Warren Jeffs Trial: Day 1

[News] St. George, UT - With the opening arguments in the trial of Warren Jeffs slated for this afternoon (the final jury--eight members and four alternates--were being selected this morning), it's a good time to take a closer look at the actual charges that Jeffs faces.

As has been reported over and over again, Jeffs is not on trial for polygamy (Judge James Shumate reemphasized yesterday that, "Polygamy has nothing to do with the case"), but that he is charged with two counts of Rape as an Accomplice. But what has received little attention is what those charges actually mean.

"It's a kind of a case of creative charging, because in reality there are no charges that are a perfect fit for the crime Warren Jeffs allegedly committed," says Daniel Medwed a professor at Utah's S.J. Quinny School of Law, where he specializes in criminal procedure.

Rape as an accomplice, as defined in the original indictment against Jeffs, is a combination of that Utah's Rape of Minor statute, and the state's Criminal Responsibility statute. "And, by facilitating these underage 'celestial marriages,' that is, in essence, what Jeffs [allegedly] did. But," Medwed adds, "The charges are not a good fit in that Rape as an Accomplice is usually prosecuted when it is rape in the forcible sense, as opposed to the statutory sense." Meaning that it is usually the explicit assistance of sexual battery, as opposed to assisting in the enticement of sex with a minor, which the Rape of Minor statute hinges on.

There is precedent though for Utah using these charges to prosecute quasi-religious 'spiritual marriages.' In 1997, John Perry Chaney was convicted of rape as an accomplice for marring his then-14 year-old daughter to a 48 year-old man. The prosecutor in that case, Craig Barlow of the Utah Attorney General's office, is now assisting the prosecution in the Jeffs case.

But because of the unique context in which the Rape as an Accomplice charge has been applied in both the Chaney and Jeffs cases, it has led some, including Jeffs's lawyers, to cry religious persecution.

"I think there is a strong argument to be made that this is somewhat of malicious prosecution," says Medwed. "It's not totally clear if these celestial marriages were a license for sex, and while it doesn't seem very consensual, we also aren't going after the high school senior who introduces a classmate to a freshman girl."

The Washington County Attorney's office declined to respond specifically to Professor Medwed's comments, but spokesman Brian Filter did say that a number of this issues had already been addressed in pretrial hearings (including a motion by the defense challenging the validity of the Rape of a Minor statute, on the grounds that it was too vague, which was dismissed by Judge Shumate). "We're going to present argument in the proper forum," says Filter, "In court."

"All it takes is one juror who cringes at the perceived notion of religious persecution, and that's a mistrial that could result in an acquittal," says Medwed. "Don't underestimate how hard this case could be for the prosecution."

Which leads back to a rumor that has been flying around Utah's legal community for several months now, that the state's case could be shaky. The rumor stems from U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman's decision, apparently at the state's request, to indict Jeffs on federal unlawful flight charges, a rarity when the defendant is facing much more saver charges (unlawful flight carries a maximum five-year sentence). Nothing has come along to substantiate this rumor, but it continues to persist.

"This is a risky case for both sides. If the prosecution loses, it could reinvigorate the FLDS, not to mention embarrass those involved. For the defense, the stakes in a rape trial couldn't be higher," says Medwed. "I really wouldn't be surprised if we saw some sort of last minute plea deal, possibly on lesser financial charges." (Louis Godfrey)

Law & Order: FLDS

[News] St. George, UT - It seems like everyone in Washington County got called for jury duty last week, including my grandmother. Three hundred summonses were sent out, creating a pool of potential jurors to hear the case against FLDS Church Prophet Warren Jeffs, an unusually high number for a very unusual case. Jeffs faces two counts of rape as an accomplice, for allegedly conducting a spiritual marriage between a 14-year-old girl and an older man.

“Let me just say, I think it is going to be almost impossible for them to find a jury that is completely unbiased. In general, Warren Jeffs is completely despised,” says a Salt Lake City criminal defense attorney, who asked me not to use his name. “That said, selecting a jury is an incredibly complex task, and there is real strategy that goes into how you build the foundation of your case in the minds of the jury from the very beginning.”

The very beginning is a 75-part questionnaire—constructed by both the prosecution and the defense team—that probed the respondent’s education level, general feelings about the criminal justice system and media habits. But, naturally, the bulk of the questions focused on religious attitudes. Three examples:

No. 17: Under the law, a person’s religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with the criminal laws prohibiting non-consensual sexual intercourse. Are you willing to accept and abide by this rule of law? (Yes or No)

No. 20: Are you currently a practicing member of the LDS Church? (Yes or No)

No. 62: The Practice of polygamy is not an issue in this case. But, polygamy or plural marriage is a central belief of the FLDS Community. Are you comfortable setting aside any feelings you may have regarding polygamy and reaching a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court? (Yes or No)

As of the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 75 potential jurors had been eliminated due their questioner responses. In addition to that, seven others have been excused based on follow up interviews. Those follow-up interviews, which are still being conducted as of this post, are being held in the chambers of Judge James Schumate, with Jeffs’s lawyers, the prosecution, a small group of reporters, and Jeffs himself present (who, in his gray suite and gray-and-white tie, has apparently been quite animated during these sessions).

According to the reporters, most of the follow-up questions stick pretty closely to the questionere, except when Walter Bugden, one of Jeffs’s lawyers, goes into explicit explanations of FLDS practice and doctrine, and then closely gauging the jurors’ reaction.

“A defense attorney hopes that if a juror is going to be overly biased, it will be pretty obvious, and the judge will exclude them,” says that same unnamed Salt Lake defense attorney. “But once you find one that you think will be able to fairly hear that case—that isn’t convinced that Warren Jeffs is the devil incarnate—a good defense attorney will try to get his case out there. The questions he will ask will be built on the presumption of the case he is trying to make. I can’t stress how important this is.”

“Basically,” he continues, “You are getting the jury thinking the right way before the trial ever begins.” (Louis Godfrey)