Tweet
Love them loony '70's radicals
From the New York Times:
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 14 — In court sessions over the past two weeks, Sara Jane Olson hemmed, dodged and protested. But she said yes, on three occasions, when asked if she was certain she wanted to plead guilty to charges of plotting to bomb two police cruisers in 1975.
The weight of her possible sentence and the weight of her old convictions appear to still be bending her highly malleable resolve. Ms. Olson has reversed herself yet again and filed a petition seeking to withdraw her plea, something that legal experts said would be extremely difficult to do.
The State Superior Court judge handling the case, Larry Paul Fidler, set a hearing for Nov. 28. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office has made no formal response yet, but officials there said they would fight revisiting the matter.
"She has had three chances, in court, to change her mind on this," Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the office, said. "We don't think there's any reason for her to withdraw this plea now."
Ms. Olson, 54, who changed her name from Kathleen Soliah after fleeing the indictment more than two decades ago, has transformed herself into an upper-middle class homemaker in St. Paul, with three grown daughters and a flair for acting in community theater.
She was found and arrested two years ago and vowed to fight the charges. But the prosecutors have said they have damning, if circumstantial, evidence linking Ms. Olson to the radical Symbionese Liberation Army, to bomb-making equipment and to the large pipe bombs that failed to detonate after being placed under the police cars.
Ever since making a surprise guilty plea on Oct. 31, Ms. Olson has visibly battled to recapture and express the political passion that drove her to become a dissident who was admittedly close to the S.L.A.
Minutes after entering her plea to two felony counts, she renounced it outside the courtroom. Not only did she have no regrets about what she had done 26 years ago, she said, but "I'm still the same person I was then."
That prompted Judge Fidler to order her back to court last week and to ask her in clear, explicit terms whether she was in fact guilty of the charges and if she wished to plead guilty.
She hesitated. She insisted she had not actually handled any bombs and made a show of her contempt for the proceedings.
But she stated that she had aided and abetted the conspiracy and said "yes" twice in response to the judge's repeated question of whether she wanted to enter the plea.
Ms. Olson has since taken a different view.
"After deeper reflection, I realize I cannot plead guilty when I know I am not," she said in a declaration that was filed on Tuesday under seal and then unsealed this morning.
She added that, after disavowing her first guilty plea and then being forced to return to court to decide yet again, she had lost her nerve. Now, she insisted, she had found it.
"I was prepared to go to trial after I was informed of your order for a second hearing regarding my guilty plea," she wrote in her declaration to the judge. "Cowardice prevented me from doing what I knew I should: throw caution aside and move forward to trial. I am not second-guessing my decision as much as I have found the courage to take what I know is the honest course."
While it is not uncommon for defendants who plead guilty to have second thoughts, several legal experts said that it was rare for judges in state court to allow pleas to be withdrawn.
Ira Reiner, a former district attorney here, said: "It appears she simply feels regret, and that is not a basis for a withdrawal of a plea. She would normally have to establish some significant irregularity."
He said the usual grounds for withdrawal were a defendant's failure to receive adequate legal advice or to understand the consequences of a guilty plea. In her declaration, Ms. Olson called her two principal lawyers "brilliant," so it seemed unlikely she would complain of poor representation.
Mr. Reiner said that perhaps Ms. Olson's best approach would be to try to convince Judge Fidler that she repeatedly lied when she acknowledged her guilt in court and that she was telling the truth now.
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 14 — In court sessions over the past two weeks, Sara Jane Olson hemmed, dodged and protested. But she said yes, on three occasions, when asked if she was certain she wanted to plead guilty to charges of plotting to bomb two police cruisers in 1975.
The weight of her possible sentence and the weight of her old convictions appear to still be bending her highly malleable resolve. Ms. Olson has reversed herself yet again and filed a petition seeking to withdraw her plea, something that legal experts said would be extremely difficult to do.
The State Superior Court judge handling the case, Larry Paul Fidler, set a hearing for Nov. 28. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office has made no formal response yet, but officials there said they would fight revisiting the matter.
"She has had three chances, in court, to change her mind on this," Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the office, said. "We don't think there's any reason for her to withdraw this plea now."
Ms. Olson, 54, who changed her name from Kathleen Soliah after fleeing the indictment more than two decades ago, has transformed herself into an upper-middle class homemaker in St. Paul, with three grown daughters and a flair for acting in community theater.
She was found and arrested two years ago and vowed to fight the charges. But the prosecutors have said they have damning, if circumstantial, evidence linking Ms. Olson to the radical Symbionese Liberation Army, to bomb-making equipment and to the large pipe bombs that failed to detonate after being placed under the police cars.
Ever since making a surprise guilty plea on Oct. 31, Ms. Olson has visibly battled to recapture and express the political passion that drove her to become a dissident who was admittedly close to the S.L.A.
Minutes after entering her plea to two felony counts, she renounced it outside the courtroom. Not only did she have no regrets about what she had done 26 years ago, she said, but "I'm still the same person I was then."
That prompted Judge Fidler to order her back to court last week and to ask her in clear, explicit terms whether she was in fact guilty of the charges and if she wished to plead guilty.
She hesitated. She insisted she had not actually handled any bombs and made a show of her contempt for the proceedings.
But she stated that she had aided and abetted the conspiracy and said "yes" twice in response to the judge's repeated question of whether she wanted to enter the plea.
Ms. Olson has since taken a different view.
"After deeper reflection, I realize I cannot plead guilty when I know I am not," she said in a declaration that was filed on Tuesday under seal and then unsealed this morning.
She added that, after disavowing her first guilty plea and then being forced to return to court to decide yet again, she had lost her nerve. Now, she insisted, she had found it.
"I was prepared to go to trial after I was informed of your order for a second hearing regarding my guilty plea," she wrote in her declaration to the judge. "Cowardice prevented me from doing what I knew I should: throw caution aside and move forward to trial. I am not second-guessing my decision as much as I have found the courage to take what I know is the honest course."
While it is not uncommon for defendants who plead guilty to have second thoughts, several legal experts said that it was rare for judges in state court to allow pleas to be withdrawn.
Ira Reiner, a former district attorney here, said: "It appears she simply feels regret, and that is not a basis for a withdrawal of a plea. She would normally have to establish some significant irregularity."
He said the usual grounds for withdrawal were a defendant's failure to receive adequate legal advice or to understand the consequences of a guilty plea. In her declaration, Ms. Olson called her two principal lawyers "brilliant," so it seemed unlikely she would complain of poor representation.
Mr. Reiner said that perhaps Ms. Olson's best approach would be to try to convince Judge Fidler that she repeatedly lied when she acknowledged her guilt in court and that she was telling the truth now.