Police face off with an RNC demonstrator. Photo: Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent

The Republican National Convention opened in St. Paul at the Xcel Energy Center exactly a year ago. Repercussions from the gathering — and, more significantly, the corresponding protests in the streets — continue to be felt today.

The St. Paul Police Department initially vowed that the city would present a welcoming face to Republican delegates and protesters alike. But on the opening day of the convention the streets of downtown St. Paul were lined with hundreds of cops clad head to toe in riot gear. The first day witnessed the most violent clashes of the gathering — with protesters shattering downtown windows and slashing tires, and the cops responding with the liberal use of pepper spray and flash-bang grenades — but the confrontations and arrests would continue throughout the four-day gathering.

By the time John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president more than 800 people had been arrested, the vast majority of them in mass sweeps. So how many of these people were actually engaged in prosecutable criminal activities? A year later the answer is clear: not many.

Ultimately 676 of these cases were referred to the St. Paul City Attorney’s office for possible misdemeanor charges. But almost immediately the cases began collapsing. It was initially announced that 39 journalists who had been detained would not face criminal charges. Then in February St. Paul City Attorney John Choi let it be known that more than 300 people swept up in a mass arrest on the final night of the RNC would not be prosecuted. Ultimately more than 80 percent of the cases handled by the St. Paul City Attorney’s office didn’t result in charges.

“The overwhelming majority of arrests clearly didn’t have any basis,” says Jordan Kushner, a defense attorney who is handling several RNC-related cases.

Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that the heavy-handed police tactics and large-scale arrests were simply designed to quell dissent. He notes that in 2004, when the RNC was held in New York, there were roughly 500,000 protesters and 1,600 arrests. By contrast, in St. Paul there were an estimated 10,000 protesters and nearly 800 arrests — a strikingly higher ratio.

“The First Amendment is messy, because it allows people to speak their mind,” Samuelson says. “You need to be prepared for messy.”

But Choi maintains that the low rate of successful prosecutions isn’t necessarily indicative of wrongful arrests. He notes that the standards for making arrests and prosecuting charges are very different.

“What we’re looking at is whether we could actually obtain a conviction at trial, prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” Choi says. “That’s a really high bar. When you have situations involving First Amendment issues, mass arrest situations and a confusing fact pattern, it’s really difficult to get to believing that we would have a likelihood of success at trial.”

While the misdemeanor charges handled by Choi’s office have largely evaporated, many of the more serious criminal cases continue to work their way through the courts. On Monday, for instance, the trial of two defendants — Christina Vana and Karen Meissner — began in Ramsey County District Court on charges of aiding and abetting second-degree assault. The pair are accused of throwing a metal sign off the Marion Street bridge onto Interstate 94.

Other high-profile felony cases have resulted in guilty pleas. Bradley Crowder and David McKay, activists from Austin, Texas, eventually pleaded guilty to federal charges related to manufacturing molotov cocktails. In May, Crowder was sentenced to 24 months in prison. That same month McKay, whose initial trial resulted in a hung jury, received a 48-month sentence.

But the most conspicuous criminal charges, those involving the so-called RNC Eight, look to still be a long ways from trial. The eight defendants are charged with an elaborate, nationwide criminal conspiracy to disrupt — and ultimately bring to a halt –  the convention. In a series of raids during the days leading up to the convention, Ramsey County Sheriff’s deputies seized seized smoke bombs, sling shots, bottles of vinegar, buckets of nails and other purported evidence of this conspiracy.

The eight activists alleged to be behind the criminal plot — Erik Oseland, Eryn Trimmer, Garrett Fitzgerald, Luce Guillen-Givens, Max Specktor, Monica Bicking, Rob Czernik and Nathanael Secor — were initially charged with felony counts of conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree in furtherance of terrorism. In March, however, the more incendiary terrorism aspect of the charges was dropped by the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office.

But attorney Larry Leventhal, who is representing Specktor, argues that the terrorism designation has already damaged the reputations of the defendants. “Everybody’s against terrorism,” he notes. “You use words like that for inflammatory purposes.”

The cases were slated for a hearing last month, but it got postponed owing to a scheduling conflict. Two thorny issues must be settled before they can proceed to trial: whether all the defendants will be tried together and exactly what evidence will be deemed admissable. No trial date has been set. The defendants have stated repeatedly that they intend to fight the charges.

“I am not going to take a plea bargain,” says Rob Czernik. “I want to fight this. I want to see it through to the end. If I get found guilty I get found gulty. I’m not going to go down without a fight.”

Czernik and others largely blame the prosecutions on the strong-arm tactics of the Ramsey County Sherrif’s Department, which conducted the undercover investigations that led to the RNC Eight arrests. In particular, they believe Sheriff Bob Fletcher was guilty of fear-mongering with regards to the aims of anti-RNC activists.

“I totally think this is a creation of Bob Fletcher’s mind,” Czernik says of the investgation.

But Fletcher says the strength of the evidence will ultimately be weighed by a jury. “That’s why we have a court system,” he says. “The facts will speak for themselves at trial.”

Even less settled than criminal matters is the civil litigation resulting from RNC activities. Many cases are just now entering the court system. In February, for example, seven cases were filed in U.S. District Court by plaintiffs charging that their civil rights were violated.

On Tuesday a class-action lawsuit is expected to be filed on behalf of individuals who were arrested during a mass sweep on the first day of the RNC. According to Robert Kolstad, one of three attorneys handling the  case, there will initially be two dozen plaintiffs attached to the case, but the list of litigants could grow to as many as 200 individuals.

The City of St. Paul (or any other government entity involved in RNC security) won’t likely be on the hook for a dime from such lawsuits. That’s in part because the city negotiated with the Minneapolis-St. Paul 1008 Host Committee — the nonprofit group charged with organizing the event — to purchase a $10 million insurance policy to cover any legal liabilities. Some have argued that this allowed officers to behave with impunity when facing off with protesters.

“It was carte blanche for the police to do whatever they wanted,” says defense attorney Kushner. “They didn’t have any financial liability to face so they had no disincentive for violating people’s rights.”

But Choi states that this theory is “fatally flawed.” He points out that the city is always covered by an insurance policy for police actions. The only difference in this instance was that the RNC host committee picked up the tab for the plan. “No matter what we would have had insurance,” he says.

How much will ultimately be paid out in lawsuits likely won’t be known for years. But the damage to the credibility of the cops is likely irreparable in the minds of many activists.

In part that’s because the expectation created by the St. Paul Police Department of a relatively benign security presence during the RNC hardly gelled with reality. This was among the criticisms voiced by former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger and former federal prosecutor Andy Luger in an 82-page report on RNC policing that was released in January. It’s a viewpoint that’s also shared by Fletcher.

“It was a flawed attempt to keep everyone happy,” he says. “What was needed was more honesty about the type of enforcement that was gong to occur.”

The Minnesota chapter of the ACLU is currently suing Fletcher’s office over the seizure of literature in the days leading up to the RNC. But Samuelson agrees that Minnesotans were misled about what to expect during the RNC and weren’t prepared for the heavy presence of law enforcement.

“The people of this state believed what they were told by law enforcement,” he says. “I think maybe a lot more skepticism might be in order the next time we entertain one of these events.”

In recent weeks supporters of the so-called RNC Eight, accused of conspiring to violently disrupt September’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul, have ratcheted up their campaign to have criminal charges against the activists dismissed. The Duluth Central Labor Body, with 17,000 members, passed a resolution condemning the prosecutions. A petition signed by roughly 3,000 people was delivered to Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner’s office by serenading protesters. And one of the RNC Eight defendants made an appearance on MSNBC earlier this week.

The high-profile nature of the prosecutions, coupled with Gaertner’s ongoing campaign for governor, means that today’s decision to drop the most inflammatory terrorism charges against the defendants was certain to be viewed through a political prism.

“It’s becoming a real national issue of controversy that obviously is embarrassing for somebody who’s running for governor,” says Jordan Kushner, an attorney for one of the defendants. “I don’t think she’s going to get out of it just by dropping those charges, as far as the political implications go.”

Bruce Nestor, another of the defense attorneys, is slightly less cynical in assessing Gaertner’s motivations.

“I think this is a political case,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be about her own personal ambitions. … If this had proceeded as a typical anonymous prosecution, our clients would still be facing terrorism charges.”

Gaertner disputes that her political ambitions — or any factors beyond the merits of the case — played a role in her office’s deliberations.

“This case, like many the county attorney deals with, is a no-win situation politically,” she says. “In this case, as in so many, some people will think I’m too harsh; some people will think I’m too soft. I have to put aside the background noise and make decisions based on how I can achieve justice and public safety. That’s what this decision was based on.”

The news that the terrorism charges would be dropped, first reported this morning by Minnesota Independent, is being cheered by the group’s supporters. But the defendants — Erik Oseland, Eryn Trimmer, Garrett Fitzgerald, Luce Guillen-Givens, Max Specktor, Monica Bicking, Rob Czernick and Nathanael Secor — still face felony counts of conspiracy to riot and damage property, punishable by up to five years in prison. Nothing in the criminal complaints, which detail a purported criminal conspiracy to sow chaos at the Republican National Convention, has changed. The next hearings in the cases are slated to take place in May.

According to Gaertner, the dropping of terrorism charges was a routine decision the likes of which her office makes on a daily basis. “We amend complaints as a part of trial strategy frequently,” she says. “As you get ready for trial, you get a better sense of what you think the core is of your case, what you think the jury is going to respond to and you proceed accordingly. That’s exactly what happened here.”

Gaertner further insists that the decision is not an acknowledgment that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to secure convictions.

“We cannot proceed on a case unless we believe as prosecutors that we have sufficient evidence to convict the defendants as charged beyond a reasonable doubt,” she says. “That’s true in every case; that’s true in this case. The terrorism charge enhancement wasn’t dropped for evidentiary reasons. It was dropped for trial strategy reasons.”

But defense attorneys for the RNC Eight say it’s an admission that the prosecution didn’t have a credible case. “The reality is that they recognized that it was a charge that couldn’t be sold to a jury, and it hadn’t been sold to the public,” says Nestor. “While we welcome it, it doesn’t change what’s wrong at the core of the investigation and the prosecution, which is that the investigation and the public statements about it to date have proceeded as if these eight organizers are terrorists.”

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher, whose office played a central role in the criminal investigations that lead to the RNC Eight prosecutions, is supportive of the county attorney’s decision. “This will eliminate one element of the crimes that needs to be proved at trial and will make it easier to convict the defendants on the charges of riot and criminal damage to property,” he says. “The terrorism charge would have been a distraction at trial and further confused the journey.”

The RNC Eight were thought to be the first defendants indicted under what’s been billed as the Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT act, which provides for enhanced penalties in terrorism cases. Gaertner says her office was simply following the law in bringing the prosecutions.

“This law, as written, was passed in the post-9/11 atmosphere of fear,” she says. “I don’t know what the Legislature intended when they wrote the law the way they did. But if they didn’t intend it for cases like this, they should amend it.”

This means that the defendants will no longer be subject to a possible 50-percent enhancement in their prison sentences if ultimately convicted of the charges. The RNC Eight (pictured) are believed to be the first defendants ever charged under the Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT Act.

The decision to reduce the charges comes as the terrorism prosecutions have received heightened scrutiny from the media. It also comes as the calendar for Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party gatherings gets crowded, including a debate for gubernatorial candidates next week at St. John’s University. Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner is hoping to win the party’s backing for governor and has been receiving criticism from party activists for the prosecutions.

Jordan Kushner, an attorney for one of the RNC Eight defendants, believes the decision to reduce the charges is entirely political. “She obviously got too much bad publicity about it and she’s backing away,” he says. “But the problem is that all the charges are politically motivated and unjustified.”

The eight defendants — Erik Oseland, Eryn Trimmer, Garrett Fitzgerald, Luce Guillen-Givens, Max Specktor, Monica Bicking, Rob Czernick and Nathanael Secor — still face up to five years in prison if convicted of the charges. Their next court hearings are scheduled for May.

Officials in the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office could not immediately be reached for comment.

UPDATE: It’s official: terrorism charges have been dropped against the eight defendants. “We believe the terrorism charges would have been a distraction at trial,” Gaertner said in a statement announcing the decision. “Dismissing those charges will help us focus on the core illegal conduct that occurred.” Minnesota Public Radio has posted the press release from the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office.

According to the criminal complaint, Darst showed up at a Minnetrista housewarming party on Jan. 11 looking for his wife, with whom he’d quarreled earlier in the evening. Darst allegedly kicked in the door of the home and physically assaulted two individuals attending the party. “The defendant appeared to be full of rage and anger,” the complaint states.

The incident might be dismissed as a routine domestic dispute — except for Darst’s prior interactions with law enforcement. He previously served as an undercover informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, helping to build a case against the so-called RNC Eight (pictured). The group of activists are charged with criminally conspiring to disrupt the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul in September. But Darst’s own alleged criminal acts have raised questions about his credibility as an informant in the high-profile prosecutions.

Darst’s scheduled 3 p.m. court appearance never occurred, however. Apparently owing to scheduling conflicts for attorneys involved in the case, the legal matter was dealt with in an impromptu hearing earlier in the day.

According to a tape recording of the proceeding, Darst agreed to waive his right to a jury trial. Instead Mabley will decide his guilt or innocence based on written records related to the case.

Despite the unusual legal arrangement, prosecutors continue to insist that Darst is guilty of the alleged crimes. “He had reasonable alternatives available, including calling the police if he was concerned about the safety of his wife and he had the option to retreat from the dwelling,” said Assistant Hennepin County Attorney John Halla during the hearing. “He did neither.”

But the legal machinations have left some wondering if Darst might have struck a deal with the prosecution in order to avoid a trial.

“Otherwise why not just go to trial and let a jury decide?” asks Jordan Kushner, an attorney representing one member of the RNC Eight, Luce Guillen-Givins. “I would have to guess there’s more to this than what’s on the record.”

Whether these suspicions are justified will be known shortly. Mabley is slated to rule on the criminal charges facing Darst next Monday.

In the days leading up to the Republican National Convention, a series of police raids led by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office resulted in the arrest of eight people for allegedly conspiring to disrupt the political gathering. On Wednesday the individuals were each charged with a single count of “conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree in furtherance of terrorism.” The criminal complaint details a far-ranging plot by members of the RNC Welcoming Committee that included plans to kidnap delegates, attack cops with urine and molotov cocktails and ultimately bring the convention to a halt.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. A ninth individual was also arrested earlier this week and is named in the criminal complaint, but has not yet been charged. All but the latter suspect have been released on $75,000 bail.

Yesterday afternoon attorneys for the alleged co-conspirators held a press conference to rebut the charges. They portrayed the allegations as a trumped-up plot hyped by confidential informants who had a financial incentive to exaggerate the potential violence. “The most outrageous allegations made by the authorities are not supported by any evidence other than the statement of the confidential informants,” said attorney Bruce Nestor. “They’re not supported by the evidence seized.”

In one instance, for example, officers seized what was purportedly a police shield and cited it as evidence of the group’s ill intents. “We have the Sheriff displaying a single plastic item that he claims was a shield, as if one shield was going to protect demonstrators from 3500 armed riot police who have projectile-tear-gas weapons,” said Nestor.

The trio of lawyers also charged that police are utilizing terrorism fears to circumvent First Amendment rights. “All they do is they label people as terrorists and anarchists, and at that point what people are actually saying and the content of their views has no meaning anymore,” said attorney Jordan Kushner. “What they do is they dehumanize people, they stigmatize them and in the process cut off what they’re saying.”

Kushner compared the case to the treatment of the Chicago Seven in 1968 — all of whom were ultimately acquitted of conspiracy charges. “Of course that made complete fools out of the government,” he said. “When the evidence comes out in this case it’s going to be the same thing. It’s going to be about politically opportunistic, abusive, cynical people in power who are abusing the law to suppress political dissent and suppress political organizing.”

Three of the defendants — Luce Guillen-Givins, Robert Joseph Czernik and Max Jacob Specktor — were present at the press conference but did not answer questions from reporters. However, two of the defendants’ parents did comment on the charges.

Mordecai Specktor, father of Max (pictured together) and editor of the American Jewish World newspaper, stated that his son was held in solitary confinement for two days before being released on bail. “The criminal complaint here is farfetched, overblown, outrageous,” he said. “I encourage all the journalists here to look into the specifics of this complaint and see where the truth really lies.” Specktor then put his arm around his son. “This is your domestic terrorist,” he said. “Take a good look. I don’t believe it at all. Give me a break.”

The other defendants are Nathanael David Secor, Erik Charles Oseland, Monica Rachel Bicking and Garrett Scott Fitzgerald.