citylog
The E-
Edition:
CW
page
by page
Tumblr.jpg Google_Plus.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related content

Is the mystery man a mole?Animal activists keep pressing on at the UVegan activists condemn raid of their home by FBIResidential Picketing Case Ends in AcquittalsFormer WVC Animal Shelter Volunteers Condemn Gas Chamber
Related to:grand juryanimal rightsu.s. attorneys
News Blog

Grand jury resistor sentenced to 10 months in prison

by Jesse Fruhwirth
- Posted // 2010-11-03 -

Animal rights activist Jordan Halliday was sentenced today to 10 months in prison for refusing to testify to a federal grand jury after already serving four months for civil contempt for the same refusal.

City Weekly reported on Halliday's case Oct. 20. Read: Animal Rights Activist Pays Price For Grand Jury Resistance

U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart denied the U.S. Attorneys' effort to increase the sentencing level which would have made the sentencing guidelines for his conviction 15-21 months. As a result of Stewart's ruling, the advisory sentence was dropped to 10 to 16 months. Stewart said that the court and security costs the government used to justify requesting the enhancement are the same costs that underlie the charge of contempt and thus should not also be the basis for an enhancement.

Defense attorney Kent Hart did not explicitly call Halliday a political prisoner, but said prosecutors believe "Because Mr. Halliday is a vegan and an activist ... therefore he's guilty by association of these mink farm cases." Hart said the U.S. Attorney's pursuit of criminal contempt charges against Halliday after he already served four months for civil contempt is not only very rare, but perhaps "unprecedented and it seems to be rather dangerous."

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Huber admitted that criminal charges for contempt following civil incarceration is "unique" but said he is aware of one Florida defendant facing the same circumstance. Huber maintained the government's position that Halliday has insider knowledge of two mink releases from 2008, a claim Halliday denies.

In a brief statement to the court, Halliday said he will continue his animal rights activism but "I always have and will always work within the law."

Halliday pleaded guilty to contempt Sept. 20. He explained to City Weekly his resistance to testify by expressing fear that the grant of immunity from the government in exchange for his testimony is not what it seems. While his own testimony could not be used to prosecute him, he said, he feared that anyone prosecuted with evidence he provided could retaliate by providing evidence to the government. He chalks it up to government obstruction of lawful protest akin to the 1970s-era COINTELPRO strategies for federal law enforcement.

"[Halliday] is being used as an example for the government to send a message to all other animal rights activists that if they do not cooperate with the government they will be incarcerated," Hart said.

The hour before his hearing began, Halliday posted a video (embedded below) of himself singing a good-bye song to friends and family. In the tweet containing the video, he wrote, "I'm going to be a jerk and leave this as my (possible) last tweet for a while. Love you guys. Wish me luck."

Halliday was ordered to self-surrender by Jan. 3, but will appeal the sentence.

Follow Me:TwitterFacebook
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post a comment
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Hayduke
Posted // November 4,2010 at 10:27

Shoot. I thought he was going to cover Ween's "I'll Miss You".

"While his own testimony could not be used to prosecute him, he said, he feared that anyone prosecuted with evidence he provided could retaliate by providing evidence to the government."

On an earlier post regarding this guy's predicament, I remember thinking that this comment seemed odd. It doesn't exactly make the dude sound like he's innocent. It sounds as if the only reason he'll not provide evidence against other people is because he's afraid that other people will then provide evidence against him.

I may be way off here, but it seems to me that this guy has weighed the consequences of keeping his mouth shut and doing the time for that, and ratting out his buddies, prompting them to rat him out, which would probably lead to even more time spent in prison for whatever crime he appears to be hiding from. Maybe he figures he'll do less time this way and will avoid having whatever he is hiding being placed on his record.

Plus, it's a lot more respectable, even honorable, to do time for silence than for burning down a leather store or releasing hundreds of domestically farmed mink into the wild to die of starvation and exposure.

I never really understood that "free the mink" concept. If I were a farm-raised mink, I'd prefer to be dispatched quickly and turned into a coat collar than be "freed" into the wild to die slowly and painfully.

 

jason
Posted // November 5,2010 at 18:47 - I think what Halliday was trying to say when he stated those things is how the grand jury is flawed. I have seen multiple articles where he states he taking a moral stance against unjust and archaic grand jury system. I believe he was just providing an example of how the grand jury system could be abused and not that he actually fears retaliation from friends.

 

Hayduke
Posted // November 5,2010 at 14:49 - I'm not sure I can place the peace activists mentioned in the other article and the animal rights activists in the same boat here. As far as I could tell, the peace activists did nothing more than exercise their right to free speech, which differs from this case in that actual crimes were committed. And again, I see this in the other post you provided: "Halliday worries that if a grand-jury witness provides incriminating information against someone else, that other person may provide information—true or not, perhaps in exchange for leniency—right back. And while the original grand-jury witness may not be prosecuted with information that he or she provided to the grand jury under immunity, he may be prosecuted with testimony obtained from others." I realize I am being suspicious but these words are telling. I see fear, not morality or ethics, as the motivator in Mr. Halliday's decision. I don't blame anybody for trying to fight the system. In many ways, I respect that and always have. Personally, I have very little faith in "the system". I'm just having a hard time feeling sorry for this dude when it looks like he's made this decision to protect himself from further exposure to things the Feds may consider to be unsavory. Either way, I don't think it's fair to imprison him for ten more months for contempt. It is quite obvious that he is being made to serve as an example to other activists, and this sure as hell ain't the first time this sort of thing has occurred.

 

Jesse Fruhwirth
Posted // November 5,2010 at 14:09 - Halliday has explained to me both pragmatic AND principled opposition to testifying before the grand jury. Neither he specifically, nor animal rights activists generally, are alone in opposing the grand jury system, as I wrote in this blog post: http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-4442-news-blog-grand-jury-resistance-midwest-and-utah.html

 

Hayduke
Posted // November 5,2010 at 12:23 - Great comments, guys. I guess that what I don't understand is why Mr. Halliday refused to provide any information at all if he has nothing at all to hide. He could have provided the same information provided by others, information he knew the Feds already had, and may have avoided prison that way. I think it is not unfair to wonder what the Feds actually know in contrast to what they've stated publicly regarding this case. There's always more. Obviously, I know very little of Mr. Halliday's situation and am certainly not accusing him of anything. I simply saw something odd in that he's stating that he refuses to speak because he fears it would prompt those spoken against to come out and do the same thing. He didn't say in the comment outlined that he's taken a moral stand. He say's in that comment that he fears retaliation. Again, if there's nothing to hide, why go to prison? If he wasn't involved in these crimes, why should he pay for them? Because he morally supports crimes his buddies committed? How is it moral to kill animals you want to save? Are his friends so awesome that he'd go to prison for them? I tend to doubt that. If my buddy was about to do time for something I did, I'd turn myself in and save my buddy the trouble. That is the only honorable thing to do. That's the moral thing to do. Allowing your friend, or anybody else, to serve time for your crime is as low as it gets. That said, I think it's total bullshit to send the guy to prison for any time whatsoever for not talking, even if he does have information the Feds want/need. There's something very creepy about sending somebody away for silence if you have no proof of other wrong doings. I wouldn't feel that way if he withheld information pertaining to crimes of violence. As it is, information he may have deals with releasing domesticated mink into the wild to die and money lost because of that action. Too many questions in my post, I know. I guess I'll just state that if Mr. Halliday sees this as a moral issue and is willing to suffer for his convictions, more power to him. I hope his convictions are powerful enough to compensate for giving up nearly a year of his young life to prison.

 

Jason B
Posted // November 5,2010 at 09:17 - You need to understand the mantra of an activist. "don't talk everyone walks" is how it usually goes down. This isn't always the case obviously. However you assume that he fears if he snitches that his buddies will turn around and snitch on him giving him a sentence longer than he received. Three flawed points to that assumption: #1 Viehl is already out of prison after serving a fraction of his sentence; Hall should be released soon. As the actual liberators, they may have served less time than Halliday will for his refusal to cooperate with the federal witch hunts called grand juries. #2 the prosecution has stated he isn't a suspect and even granted him immunity, which they wouldn't do if he was considered a suspect. #3 his buddies were not brought before the grand jury to testify. There were only 2 known people brought before the grand jury. Jordan Halliday and Veihl's wife who said she testified but didn't say anything she didn't think the government didn't already know. Halliday didn't testify at all and this is why he was charged. Going with the mantra of most activists "you don't talk with authorities even if you don't know anything" it makes sense why he would resist even if he had no knowledge of crimes.

 

Jesse Fruhwirth
Posted // November 5,2010 at 08:41 - Interesting comment, Hayduke. Not even the U.S. Attorneys accuse Halliday of having involvement in the mink releases; they only accuse of him of having inside knowledge about them. Punctuating prosecutors lack of verbal accusations that Halliday was criminally involved, they called him to the grand jury as a witness and granted him immunity, unlike the two targets of the grand jury that they eventually convicted. Lastly, as I've written in other stories like "Dopest Plea Deal," many critics--even many respected law professors and former federal judges--rail against the U.S. Attorneys use of high-stakes cooperation (tell me everything and we'll give you 17 months, if not, we'll go for 10 years). When you have nothing to tell, it seems plausible that faced with those high stakes you might start singing whatever tune you think prosecutors might want to hear. That kind of thumb on the scale from prosecutors understandably freaks out people in Halliday's shoes. There's no doubt that Halliday knew the two suspects who were convicted of the mink releases; but prosecutors only suspect and have not had to prove that he actually knows anything special about their crime. Really lastly this time, Halliday conscientiously objects to the prosecution of mink farm releases; imagine yourself called to a grand jury, compelled to testify about an illegal action committed by your associates that, while you may not have helped them, you morally support. Would you testify?

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
asdffdsa
Posted // November 4,2010 at 06:51

shut up,salty.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Krys
Posted // November 3,2010 at 14:14

Thank you for including Jordan's song to his supporters. How very characteristic of Jordan: even with his own future on the line, he spent his pre-trial hours trying to cheer up everyone around him. I've never known a kinder, gentler soul, or one less deserving of incarceration.

 

 
Close
 
 Home | Contact | Facebook | Twitter | Freelance/Intern/Photographers | Who We Are | Circulation | Awards | Jobs | Advertising | Upload an Ad | Sponsorship Application | Promotions | Classifieds | CWStore | News | Music | Events Calendar | Food | Film & TV | A&E | Blogs | Opinion | Best Of Utah | Guides | Video | Digital Paper [Search]
© Copyright 2013 Copperfield Publishing   Salt Lake City's Independent Guide to News, Arts & Entertainment
Web Design for magazines
Close
Close
Close