"Every Hour Is a Victory" The Trial of the St. Patrick’s Four
by Bill Quigley mailtoquigley@loyno.edu
April 22, 2004
On March 17, 2003, two days before the invasion of Iraq was launched, four members of the Magnificat CatholicWorker community of Ithaca New York walked into the waiting room of the local Army-Marine recruitingcenter and carefully poured their own blood on the walls, the windows, the posters, cardboard mannequins of soldiers, thedoor and the American flag. They brought pictures of Iraqi mothers and children into the recruiting center alongwith a letter from American peace activists in Baghdad Iraq who called on peace activists in the US tononviolently resist the promise of shock and awe. They read a statement, then knelt in prayer and awaited the authorities.
The four, Daniel Burns, Peter DeMott, Clare Grady and Teresa Grady were each arrested and charged by the localDistrict Attorney with felony criminal damage to property. They became known as the "St. Patrick’s Four." Becausethey knew that the invasion of Iraq was being condemned by international law authorities around the world,they felt their actions were authorized under the Nuremberg Principles which make it legal to break local law inorder to resist war crimes. Because of their faith they felt that pouring of their own blood, though messy andshocking, was a small disturbance compared to the death and bloodshed that was to follow. Because they were eachparents, they chose the recruiting center because they wanted to try to stop the death and damage to Americansons and daughters as well as to Iraqi daughters and sons.
They refused an offer of the District Attorney’s Office to plead guilty to a misdemeanor because they were not guilty.A jury trial was scheduled.
For their trial, they decided to represent themselves. With lawyers as their advisory counsel and strong family andcommunity support, they began to prepare for trial. The state charged them with unauthorized damage to propertyover $250. The law allowed a defense that the damage was either authorized by law or the person doing thedamage reasonably thought they were authorized to damage the property. (The prosecutor said this was used whenyou thought the tree you cut down was yours because it was on your property, but it was actually on yourneighbor ’s property). They decided to use the trial to show that their nonviolent action was justifiable under bothinternational law and the defense of necessity, sometimes called justification. The essence of the necessitydefense is that your act was something which would otherwise be breaking the law but is not breaking the lawwhen it is done to prevent a greater harm - like breaking into a stranger’s home in an emergency like a fire if youare trying to rescue a child.
They met dozens of times to plan out a coordinated way to educate the jury about what they were doing and to use thetrial as an opportunity to organize around peace in the community. The pressure of a possible felony conviction andup to four years in prison was felt and there were plenty of disagreements about how to proceed. But there wasgenerous family and community support. Together they planned a trial strategy. Jury selection, opening and closingstatements, who would examine which prosecution witnesses, what questions would be asked, what documentswould they try to get before the jury - all the while trying to keep the concerns of the people of Iraq as thecenterpiece of the trial.
They filed a motion to allow Ramsey Clark to testify about international law, Howard Zinn to testify about civildisobedience, and Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton to talk about the scriptural and spiritual basis forpeacemaking. They also advised the court that they wanted to put on evidence about the war and the necessity fortheir actions. But the District Attorney ’s Office opposed these efforts.
Two weeks before trial the court denied most of the planned defense. In a devastating decision, the judge agreed withthe DA that expert witnesses and other evidence on international law and necessity would not be allowed. Thecourt did promise to allow the four to testify to their own convictions on these issues and about why they felt theiractions were justified.
As the morning of trial dawned, reporters on the local paper created a pool on how long it would take the jury toconvict - the longest bet was a couple of hours.
All filed into a big high-ceilinged congregation-style courtroom, with white walls, wooden pews, and the words "In GodWe Trust" painted in gold over the raised stand from where the judge presided. After a quick 845 am pretrialconference with the judge, the four and counsel stayed behind, held hands and prayed.
The court brought over a 100 jurors into the courtroom and examined them in panels of 18. Twelve jurors and twoalternates had to be selected. Their verdict had to be unanimous. The court asked a number of basic questions andthen allowed each side to ask 30 minutes of questions to each panel.
The St. Patrick’s Four conducted their own jury selection from a table where supporters had placed three daffodils ina small glass vase. They started out by telling the jury exactly what they had done. To the surprise of the reporters,the four admitted right away that they went into the recruiting center, prayed and poured their own blood allover in order to try to stop the war and protect US soldiers and the people of Iraq.
They then asked people whether they thought the invasion of Iraq was moral or not. Was it legal? Could the presidentmake a mistake? Were the casualties worth it? Did Iraq have anything to do with 9-11? Could the jurors keepan open mind about whether the four should be convicted until after all the evidence was in, or had people alreadydecided? Some jurors were puzzled - saying "didn’t you just admit you were guilty?" "No, we admitted that wetook the action, but we are not guilty because it was authorized under international law and necessity." Theprosecutor objected but the judge said they could tell the jury what they were going to testify to. The prosecutorasked jurors to promise to follow the law. The St. Patrick’s Four asked the jurors to be the conscience ofthe community and to promise to create justice.
Passions in the potential jurors ran high as jury selection turned into a huge focus group debating the war in Iraq, civildisobedience, Vietnam, slavery and the duties in hindsight of the citizens in Nazi Germany. Many said they couldnot keep an open mind and the judge excused them from serving. Some jurors said the war was a horrible mistake and theycould never convict anyone of doing anything to oppose it. Other jurors were visibly angry saying that even thoughthey thought the invasion may have been a mistake, this was no time to criticize the war while troops were on theground - prompting other potential jurors to break out in applause. Stereotypes were shattered as VFW membersscoffed at the judgment of the president and business lobbyists said they were passionately against the war.After interviewing nearly 80 citizens until almost 6 o ’clock, twelve jurors and two alternatives were selected. Itwas an exhausting and trying day, but one in which some of the questions about the war were raised - hopefully itdid some justice for the people of Iraq. After the long day, another meeting - many hopes and some tears - ending withholding hands and prayers for the people of Iraq.
Meanwhile supporters were preparing open lunches in a nearby unitarian church and dinners and music for dozens eachevening - great opportunities for sharing information about the trial and building community. Meetings were oftenheld on folding tables with crawling babies while eating everything from Moosewood spinach quiche and goatcurry to peanut butter sandwiches.
As the jury was brought in, there were soft prayers at the table. Opening statements were made by the prosecutor andeach of the four. The prosecutor said this was a simple case of damage, easily proven, easily decided. Each of thedefendants again admitted that they poured blood in the recruiting center, then explained why. Peter DeMottadmitted he poured blood and spoke of his time in the Army and Marines in Vietnam, the horrors of war, abouthis family, and about the Nuremberg Principles. The prosecutor objected, but the judge said that even thoughonly the judge could tell the jury about the law the defendants could tell the jury what they intended to testify about.Teresa Grady told about growing up in a household of resistance where her father had destroyed draft cards inCamden and his jury acquitted him, her trip to Nicaragua and the successes of numerous campaigns of civil resistancefrom anti-apartheid, to Vieques, to civil rights, to the right of women to vote. Danny Burns told the jury thatthe American flag already had blood on it, the blood of native Americans and slaves and immigrants and civilians inHiroshima and Vietnamese burning children. And he told about his family and humbly asked the jury to listen to thedefendants tell their story about international law and justification. Clare Grady told them about her trip to Iraq inthe 1990s and her bonds with the women and children she met there - people whose pictures she brought into therecruiting center - people who she hoped to put before the jury as they weighed the legality of the pouring ofblood.
The prosecutor then started her case. As she did, the defendants stood and offered to stipulate to the facts of thecase - but the prosecutor insisted on calling witnesses and the judge allowed her to do so. She put on a fairly quickcase. Two soldiers from the recruiting center who told about the blood being poured all over, including the flag.Big pictures of bloody walls and windows and the bloody American flag were shown to the jury. The defendantsonly asked the soldiers whether potential recruits were advised about depleted uranium or the spiritual orpsychological consequences of warfare or that nearly half of those who served in the first gulf war have applied fordisability. The soldiers said that they did not know about these things and did not advise anyone about them. Thearresting officer told of the arrest - and the only response of the defendants was to thank him for the respectfultreatment he gave. A cleaner testified that he had been asked to clean up the blood. He hired two peopleclean for 7 hours each and payed them $7 to $10 an hour, but charged $45 an hour for their time and a coupleof hundred extra for his time and for supplies, thus calling into question whether the damage was over $250 ornot - a key element for the felony charge. The prosecution ’s final witness donated a new American flag and theblood spattered flag was lifted up to show the jury. The prosecution rested.
At the close of each day of trial, the defendants met to coordinate their strategies and to make mid-trial corrections.Many in the community had a stomach flu and as all were so often together shared it as generously aseverything else. Sleep was hard to come by. People in the courtroom had different perspectives on what hadhappened and what should happen. There were hopes and laughter and tears but always reconciliation, ending with hands heldand singing. And as court started each morning, hands were held in court hallways and there were soft songs andprayers.
All the while the trial was going on, the courtroom was full of children and teenagers and cousins and supporters fromnear and far. Many arriving early and staying late, others popping in between family and work obligations.Patiently sitting and standing in solidarity with the truth that is being witnessed.
The jury never knew that the defendants had tried to get additional testimony about Iraq and international law andcivil disobedience into evidence. Now, the judge dismissed the jury and again outside of their presence went overall the other witnesses and exhibits proposed to be included in the defendants case to which the prosecutor hadlodged objections. Cathy Breen of New York Catholic Worker and Voices in the Wilderness to testify about what itwas like in Baghdad before and during the bombardment? Not allowed. Fr. Ned Murphy, SJ, about the defendants ’reputation and the role of blood in scriptures? Denied. Damacio Lopez to speak about the effects ofdepleted uranium in Iraq and in New Mexico? Denied. Pre-invasion reports by Scott Ritter testifying that Iraq didnot have weapons of mass destruction? Denied. Pictures of people in Iraq? Denied. Newspaper articles from aroundthe world about the illegality of an invasion of Iraq under international law? Denied. A copy of the NurembergPrinciples? Denied. The only evidence the judge was letting in was the testimony of the defendantsthemselves about what they did, why they did it, and how they thought they were justified in doing so. Thejury got to see none of this evidence, nor knew that it was excluded.
In the end, it was up the four, and them alone, to tell the jury and the larger community why they poured their bloodand why they thought it was moral and legal.
Peter DeMott testified as a father, a husband, the oldest of nine children and as a Marine and Army Veteran, whoserved in the war against Vietnam. He stated it was his duty as a Christian and under International Law and theNuremberg Principles to take non-violent action to stop an illegal and immoral war undertaken by his country. Hespoke of his sincere concern for his family and for the Iraqi people suffering under the U.S. sanction, invasion andoccupation. He also spoke of great concern about the U.S. service people who are suffering in Iraq and elsewherefrom the ravages of war, and especially about the toxic effects of depleted uranium (DU) on the troops inIraq and the Iraqi people. Peter also spoke of the contamination of the air, soil and water for millions of years as aresult of the U.S. dropping tons of DU in Iraq in the current war and the first Gulf War. He respected the soldiersbut he feared for them. At the end, when asked about the command to "Love Your Enemies", he responded by saying he hadno enemies. The prosecutor asked him about prior convictions and he testified he had been arrested over 25 timesprotesting at the White House, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, the Air and Space Museum and numerousarmy and navy installations and had spent time in prison for his nonviolent protests.
Teresa Grady testified about being raised to embrace all of God's children and to greatly appreciate the diversity ofpeople while growing up in New York City. She said her religious convictions were a strong motivation for her to takeher action. She spoke of her father's acquittal in the Camden 28 trial, in which he and 27 others were involved indestroying the draft files of men about to be drafted for the Vietnam War. Teresa spoke as the parent of a teenageboy and how important it is to educate young people about the real impact of signing up for the military, thereality that the recruiters gloss over. She pointed to the numbers of people killed in Iraq during the time of the trialalone, and how that pointed to the desperate need for the prevention of this war. She testified about numerousinstances where nonviolent resistance to unjust laws ultimately helped make justice possible.
Daniel Burns testified that as a parent of a small child, he felt that the loss of a single child would be too great foranyone to bear, and that he was thinking very much of that when he took his action. As the tenth of twelve children,he thought of the parents of soldiers and Iraqi citizens and how horrible it was for any of them to lose theirchildren to war. The prosecutor said to Danny, "Why didn't you just bring your own flag to the recruitment stationand pour your blood on it outside? That would have been fine." He stated that Rosa Parks didn't just standoutside the bus and hold a sign. She went inside the bus and took more serious action and the world was betterfor her action. Danny said he felt there was an emergency about to occur in Iraq and that our country isessentially "on fire", with the emergency continuing in Iraq and the tragedy continuing here as well in the form ofU.S. military people still coming home dead, wounded and scarred. He felt his action was taken as an emergencymeasure, in conjunction with many others around the world who were also saying "NO" to this war. He talkedabout seeing articles in the paper challenging the proposed invasion as a violation of international law andstatements by hundreds of law professors who said war was illegal.
Clare Grady told of her eyewitness knowledge of the suffering in Iraq at the hands of the U.S. sanctions when shevisited there with a Voices in the Wilderness Delegation in 1999. She told how she visited with Iraqi mothers anddespite their language barriers they together shared the joy of their children, kissing each other ’s photographs oftheir children. Clare spoke of her strong religious belief that there is never justification for killing. Clare said thatshe was raised to oppose injustice, to oppose racism, war making and the injustices of poverty. She rememberedhow her father cried when Martin Luther King was killed and how the family helped him run as a peace candidate forcongress. She spoke of her work as kitchen coordinator for 15 years in the community kitchen in Ithaca, servingfree meals 5 times per week. She then recounted how she went to the recruiting center and carefully poured theblood and knelt and prayed and waited for the authorities.
In the fourth day of the trial, after Clare finished, all the defendants rose and said together "the defense rests." Thejury was dismissed for the Easter weekend.
The judge discussed proposed jury instructions - ultimately rejecting most of the ones suggested by the defendants oninternational law, necessity, and Nuremberg principles - instead keeping most of the standard jury instructions for acriminal damage case.
Over the Easter weekend, while the defendants worked on their closing statements to the jury there was a shock -Peter had been hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage. While he was in intensive care, the community and the families ralliedto support his family and the rest of the defendants. The doctors would not allow him to leave the hospital, would the trialcontinue or would there be a mistrial? Peter wanted the trial to continue for the sake of all involved, especially thejurors who had already given up four days. Defendants and dozens in the community decided to go forward with ahuge Easter gathering with a pitch-in dinner and music and festivities.
On Monday the judge agreed to allow the trial to go forward as Peter had requested and allowed Peter’s advisorycounsel to read a brief closing statement from him to the jury. Teresa closed with "We are Catholic Workersand We Are Still Pacifists." Clare thanked the jury for their time and reminded them that while everyone in thetrial had the weekend to catch up and take a breath, the people of Iraq were dying by the dozens as were many USsoldiers. Clare finished with a quote from GK Chesterton about the importance and wisdom of juries. Danny gave abrief summation of the case and asked the jury to look at their action not in the narrow legalistic context that theprosecutor wanted, but in the context of the war in Iraq, in the context of history of nonviolent civil resistance,and in the context of justice. Danny said Iraq is the building and the building is on fire, though they were not able to stopthe fire of war, they should not be penalized for trying. He reminded the jurors of their promise to give justiceand asked them to send the world a message of justice and peace by deciding justly. The prosecutor said it was a simplecase with a simple outcome - conviction of people who, though idealistic, were wrong and engaged in illegal actsthat if approved would lead to anarchy. She also said that even if Iraq was a burning building, it was millions ofmiles away and there was nothing that anyone could reasonably do about it - thus the defendants should beconvicted.
The judge then gave the jury his instructions and their deliberations started at 1130 on Monday morning. One of thecourt personnel was overheard saying "These people are making a mockery of this whole process!"
While at lunch, one person from upstate New York told how she and others had gone over a fence around a nationalguard installation to protest the first gulf war, had gone to trial and poured their hearts out for a day and ahalf - and their jury was out seven minutes before convicting them!
As the afternoon inched forward, supporters were heard saying "every hour is a victory." (The newspaper reporters’pool for how long the jury would be out topped out at a couple of hours).
At 545 all were summoned back into court. As the jury filed in, the judge said they wanted the cross-examinationtestimony of the defendants read back to them. A bad sign. All the prosecutor wanted to focus on was theirversion of the action - having each defendant admit again that they had poured blood and waited. Hopes sagged.The testimony was re-read to them. After that the judge ordered them dinner and sent them back to deliberate.
At 8 at night all were summoned back into the courtroom. People were very worried, but it turned out that the light inthe jury room had gone out and the judge was going to dismiss them for the night.
The next day the jury is out all morning and the judge orders them lunch. The print reporter admitted that no one intheir pool even bet that the jury would be out overnight. The TV reporter said her managers wanted to know what wasgoing on? Hadn ’t the defendants admitted that they did it? What was taking so long?
Courtroom officers admitted they were surprised by how long the jury was taking. Another courtroom official said"this is ridiculous!"
At 230 the judge asked everyone to come back to the courtroom. The jury said they were unable to reach a unanimousverdict and did not foresee any changes and asked to be let go. Defendants agreed with the jury request. Butthe prosecutor asked that they be given further instructions by the court to conscientiously re-evaluate theevidence and the court did so. Once the jury was told this and sent back to deliberate, the judge said he would re-evaluate at 5o’clock.
The next few hours went by extremely slowly. At 5 the jury had another question and the judge answered it and sentthem back to deliberate and ordered dinner.
At 850, after 20 hours of deliberation, the jury again said it was deadlocked and the judge agreed to dismiss them anddeclare a mistrial. As the jury advised the judge that they were unable to reach a verdict, the packed courtroomgave them a tremendous ovation and repeated it as they filed out.
The DA was stunned, the media were stunned, the community was elated. But the greatest news of all? Within 24 hours,it was reported that the jury was deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal of the defendants.
A mistrial means that the prosecutor can seek to re-try the defendants. The prosecution said they would try theprotestors again. The judge agreed to consider a defense motion to dismiss the prosecution in the next 30 days.
It started as a trial of brave and conscientious protestors. But it was clear that somewhere along the way the trialchanged. As it ended up, the war in Iraq itself had gone on trial. Every hour is a victory and another opportunity tolift up the concerns of the people in Iraq and work overtime in the coming weeks to try to stop the violence.
This story will end with the closing argument of Danny Burns, then you decide how together we can try to stop thecontinued killing. The jury did their part. What is ours?
Closing Argument of Daniel Burns to the Jury
First I want to thank you for giving up a week of your time to hear this case. We are not lawyers and we appreciateyour patience with us and we appreciate your attention. We also thank the judge and the courtroom people,thank you. I also thank the prosecutor. We think she is, as she joked, a talented prosecutor arguing a weak case.
I would now like to remind you of the promise you made to us in jury selection. You promised to do justice in this case.For hundreds of years, our system has relied on the wisdom and courage of jurors to do justice. I know you willkeep your promise to do justice now that the case is finally in your hands.
The prosecutor wants you to look at this case very narrowly and will tell you that you have no choice to convict us. Butthat is clearly not the case. The judge will tell you to use your common sense and to search for the just meaning ofthe words "reasonable." The jury's role is to apply the law to the facts and to produce justice. We know you will notlook at this so narrowly and we know you will never forget justice.
The prosecutor has charged with the crime of criminal mischief. The judge will tell you that this law requires 3elements
We intended to damage the property of another; We had no right, nor any reasonable ground to believe we had a right to do so; The damage exceeded $250.
Again, the prosecutor wants you to look at this very narrowly and technically - We want you to use your common senseand look at these elements in the context of the real world.
What is the context for our action?
The IMMEDIATE CONTEXT for the justice of our action is the Pre-emptive Invasion of the War of Iraq. An invasionopposed by the United Nations, opposed by most nations in this world, and founded on lies about weapons ofmass destruction, and an invasion that has cost a billion dollars a day, hundreds of American sons and daughters, andthousands of our Iraqi sisters and brothers.
Also we ask you to look at the justice of our action in light of the CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. Why was theinvasion opposed by the UN and many of our allies?
Because International law only allows an attack on another country in self defense or with approval of the UN securitycouncil - and we had neither. And The Nuremberg principles provide a legal defense for people seeking toprevent war crimes.
We also ask you to look at the justice of our action in a RELIGIOUS CONTEXT. Think of thou shall not kill. Love yourenemies. And Jesus in the temple - where he disturbed the peace and broke the law to protest the injustices of thetemple.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT is also important to judge the justice of our action. Remember the Boston Tea party, RosaParks, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, and Sojourner Truth.
The prosecution will tell you to forget all that but we say justice demands that you use common sense and context.
So, in these contexts, how do we think justice applies to the elements of this charge?
The first element, damage to property. We ask you to balance the mess we made with the horrors we were trying toprevent. We think if you do that you will find justice.
The second element is "the right to do so, or reasonable ground to believe we had such a right" - we have tried toexplain our religious, historical, moral, and international law reasons. We believe what most other people in the worldbelieve - that no country has the right to invade and bomb another country except in self-defense. We thinkhistory will judge that this was an illegal and immoral war. That is what we tried to stop. Even though we are notlawyers, I hope we were able to explain our reasons to you so that you might apply justice.
The third element is damage of over $250. We hurt no person. We admitted from the beginning that we poured ourblood, prayed and stayed to take responsibility for our actions - because what we did was right. The prosecutionhas not given you proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you can put ANY cost on the mess we created. Thecleaner admitted on the stand that he gave one bill under oath to the grand jury and a completely different oneunder oath here in this court - that alone is enough to create reasonable doubt about the proof of damages. Thecleaner also testified that he did NO CLEANING himself. 2 people did most of a day's work and he paid them $7 to$10 dollars an hour. 14 hours at $10 an hour is far, far less than $250. And we all know the cost of ammonia. Hewanted to be paid $45 an hour and who blames him, but use your common sense, and consider what the real cost is.The prosecution has not proved this element beyond a reasonable doubt.
No jury would convict 4 people of breaking and entering if they broke into a burning house to try to save a child. Here,the building was on fire - as Iraq is now, and we broke in to try to save our troops and the innocent Iraqis. Wedid not save them, but justice says we should not be punished for trying.
So, we end where we started. We ask for justice.
We ask for justice for the people of Iraq and our troops, We ask for justice for world peace. We ask for justice tosay no to pre-emptive illegal war.
Send a message to the world from Tomkins county -
we say yes to conscience, we say yes to love of neighbor, we say yes to international law, say yes to justice.
Thank you and god bless. | 
