In a move environmental activists are, cautiously, calling a victory in the Green Scare, the Oregon Court of Appeals recently overturned the massive sentence handed down to an environmental activist who admittedly torched three SUVs. Jeff “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years in prison for his role in arson at the Romania truck lot in Eugene. The fire caused about $50,000 in damage, no one was injured and it took 20 minutes to contain.
In the appeals court ruling, which you can read here, the court upheld all 10 of his felonies but said that the trial court had made a mistake sentencing him back-to-back for 266 months. To put things in perspective, the bulk of Luers’ sentence is for first-degree arson. The sentence for that is a mandatory 7 1/2 years (about a third of the sentence Luers received).
According to The Register Guard:
The ruling leaves Luers, who already has served six years, facing a total sentence of between 11 years, four months and 13 years, two months, Chief Deputy Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner said Wednesday. Luers or the state attorney general may appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. If neither side appeals, then the sentence may be settled through negotiations with
Luers, Gardner said.
There are a few interesting points in the ruling that have been left out of most of the news coverage of this, and I think they’re worth noting:
*Luers also challenged a decision by the trial court that the incendiary device– a milk jug with a stick of incense stuck in a sponge– used in an attempted arson at Tyree Oil was a “weapon.” The trial court also found that the “defendant’s placement of the device near a petroleum storage depot could have resulted, although it did not actually result, in ‘very significant’ harm or loss.” The appeals court declined to make a decision on this.
That’s unfortunate, because in many ways that cuts to the heart of a lot of this “eco-terrorist” rhetoric. Luers has been forthright about his role in these actions, his political motivations, and his intentions to damage property while taking precautions against harming life. So is it fair to call the milk jug and stick of incense a weapon, even though it was not used to hurt anyone, and it was not intended to be used to hurt anyone, in order to increase his sentence? And will doing so– using a word like “weapon”– make it even easier to continue using this “War on Terrorism” to target politically-motivated property crimes (in this case, one that caused relatively little economic damage)?
*Luers also made a motion to separate two sets of charges related to the SUV fires and the attempted fires at Tyree Oil. He says the evidence collected in one case wouldn’t be admissible in the other. And, more importantly, that he “wished to be tried to a jury and to testify in the Tyree Oil matter–which, according to defendant, involved only circumstantial evidence and for which he had an alibi–while waiving his right to jury trial and testifying only as to limited matters regarding the Romania fire counts.” In plain English, that means he thought he had a better chance of a fair trial with only a judge for the Romania SUV fires and with a jury (and testifying) at the other.
Sounds like legal inside baseball, right? But here’s the thing. The SUV fires had gotten so much media coverage and relentless use of the T-word that Luers thought it would be impossible to get an impartial jury (Kent Mortimore, a prosecutor in the case, had even told the media: “The bottom line is Luers was a terrorist who set fires and detonated explosive devices trying to make a political point.”) But Luers also adamantly maintained his innocence in the Tyree Oil case.
According to the ruling:
In the hearing on his motion, defendant reiterated those assertions and also contended that he would be prejudiced by “publicity that continues practically every single day about eco-terrorists” who, after his arrest in this case, allegedly committed crimes similar to the Romania fire.
On the push to separate the SUV and Tyree Oil actions, the court ruled against Luers, saying, “Nor were defendant’s rights to jury trial and to remain silent impaired more significantly than in any case involving multiple charges, the evidence for some of which is weaker than that for others.”
Kind of misses the point, doesn’t it?
The court should have gone further in its ruling, but the reduction in Luers’ astronomical sentence is still a victory, and a hard-fought one: it’s a procedural win, but also a symbolic victory against the courts handing down disproportionately high sentences for crimes driven by politics rather than greed. It may also reflect another step towards rulings against the “eco-terrorist” media blitzes and misplaced government priorities.