The eight defendants — Luce Guillen-Givins, Max Specktor, Nathanael Secor, Eryn Trimmer, Monica Bicking, Erik Oseland, Robert Czernik and Garrett Fitzgerald — are accused of organizing a vast criminal conspiracy to sow chaos during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Last month Gaertner’s office announced it was dropping the most inflammatory terrorism charges, but the defendants still face felony counts of conspiracy to riot and damage property, punishable by up to five years in prison.

Meanwhile the race to take over Gaertner’s post is getting more crowded. David T. Schultz, a former assistant attorney general, announced earlier this week that he’s seeking the job. Schultz is currently a trial attorney with the firm of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand. Among his supporters: former Hennepin County Attorney Tom Johnson and current Nobles County Attorney Gordon Moore.

Dave Pinto, an assistant Ramsey County attorney, is also in the race.

Current St. Paul City Attorney John Choi has formed an exploratory committee and seems poised to enter the race.  His supporters have started a Facebook group, Run Choi Run.

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.

But in the view of their allies in social-justice circles, they were dedicated activists seeking to shine a bright light on war, poverty and other injustices.

Those competing visions of the so-called RNC Eight (pictured above) will be at the heart of any criminal trials for the defendants — Erik Oseland, Eryn Trimmer, Garrett Fitzgerald, Luce Guillen-Givens, Max Specktor, Monica Bicking, Rob Czernick and Nathanael Secor.

The defendants were rounded up in a series of police raids in the days leading up to the GOP gathering in St. Paul late last summer. Led by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department, the officers seized smoke bombs, sling shots, bolt cutters, bottles of vinegar, buckets of nails, two-way radios and other items. These, prosecutors contend, were the tools of a criminal enterprise that planned to kidnap delegates, assault police officers and attack buses during the four-day gathering.

The defendants are charged with felony counts of conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree in furtherance of terrorism. In addition, the RNC Eight are believed to be the first defendants to be charged under the Minnesota version of the federal Patriot Act, which was passed in 2002. Under the law, their sentences can be ratcheted up by 50 percent, meaning the defendants could face up to seven-and-a-half years in prison.

But the conspiracy charges take the case into what some experts characterize as murky legal waters. Because the defendants were arrested prior to executing their purported criminal plan, the case will hinge on acts that prosecutors believe they credibly intended to carry out. Another novelty of such prosecutions: The entire group is legally culpable for the actions of each individual.

While conspiracy cases are common in federal court — particularly in taking down multi-state drug rings — they are comparatively rare in state courts.

“[In] state court we tend to be dealing with crimes of violence and a lot of individual actors,” says Phil Carruthers, head of the prosecution division at the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, which is handling the RNC Eight cases. “It’s kind of more the meat and potatoes of crime: murder, rape, assault. In federal court, they have fewer cases and they can have a little bit better ability to handle more complicated cases.”

In the the RNC Eight prosecutions, as with all conspiracy cases, the defendants were arrested before they could commit the major elements of their alleged plan. “In a conspiracy, no one has to actually commit a crime,” says Peter Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. “The crime is the agreement itself.”

Erlinder argues that conspiracy cases draw “perilously close” to prosecuting people for thought crimes. “If there’s agreement among the people that has an illegal objective, and one of them takes one step in furtherance of the conspiracy, that is enough to make out the separate crime of conspiracy,” he says. “The object of the conspiracy never has to actually occur.”

Conspiracy prosecutions are also unique in that the entire group is deemed legally responsible for the individual actions of each member.

“The reason they are a great benefit to prosecutors is everyone who is a member of the conspiracy is guilty of everything that the others [do],” explains Stephen Cribari, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and a former federal public defender. “If they are members of the conspiracy — and the act was done during the conspiracy and in order to further the conspiracy — all the conspirators are deemed to have done the act.”

In the instance of the RNC Eight, this means that if one member of the group actively planned violent acts and then took meaningful steps to commit them, all eight defendants would be held responsible.

Another legal issue that is yet to be settled is whether the cases will be consolidated into one trial. Neither the defense nor the prosecution has formally indicated its preference with the court. But it’s clear that the defendants would prefer to face a jury collectively.

“The defendants have all indicated that their desire at this point is to have them consolidated,” says Larry Leventhal, who is representing Max Specktor. “If the state is contending that they all worked together to achieve something, a trial at the same time with everybody would seem to be mandated.”

But the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office sees things otherwise. “The presumption in state court is that there [are] separate trials,” says Carruthers. “That’s the way it’s proceeding. Obviously if the defense brings a motion to the contrary, we’ll respond.”

Cribari says that federal conspiracy cases are consolidated in most instances. “Generally at the federal level, you try to avoid repetitious, expensive trials,” he says. “It seems easier to me to try co-conspirators together.”

But even if everyone agrees that the RNC Eight should be tried together, the logistics would be daunting. With eight defense attorneys working the courtroom, and with the high-profile prosecutions likely to draw a significant number of spectators, the case has the potential to turn into a legal circus.

Ramsey County District Judge Teresa Warner has already made it clear that any shenanigans will not be tolerated. At a February hearing, she booted one observer from the courtroom after her cell phone went off in the middle of a legal debate.

However the trials ultimately proceed, the cases will come down to starkly different descriptions of the actions of the RNC Eight. Defense attorneys argue that their clients are simply dedicated social-justice activists.

“This is obviously a political prosecution, where people are being prosecuted for their political beliefs,” says Jordan Kushner, who is representing Guillen-Givens, noting that Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner is running for governor. “It’s amusing on one level, but it’s also very disturbing that our clients are being used as political pawns in this way.”

“There’s also the public spectacle of being branded a terrorist,” adds Leventhal. “I think after the trial is over, it will be shown that they are not. During the interim, who knows what people think.”

Carruthers, naturally, sees things differently. He says the RNC Eight cases are about protecting the constitutional rights of citizens whatever their political beliefs. “Even if you disagree with Republicans, do Republicans have a right to have a convention and meet and discuss issues?” he asks. “Do only certain people have a right to expression?”

The cases are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The defense team is in the process of reviewing thousands of pages of police documents, surveillance tapes and other evidence that could be introduced at the trials. There will almost certainly be substantial legal wrangling over what materials ultimately can be entered into evidence. Trials are tentatively slated for September.

Chad McKenna, field coordinator for the labor body, says that they were motivated by a concern that such prosecutions could lead to people being arrested for engaging in routine protest activities such as walking picket lines.

“We work with the peace movement quite a bit in our area,” he says. “The broad net that was cast by the anti-terrorism act and the prosecution of the RNC Eight could affect things that we do typically.”

McKenna says there was no dissent among the roughly 50 delegates who voted on the measure.

“This was actually the second month that we’ve talked about it,” he notes. “We gave folks a month to digest the resolution.”

(Picture courtesy of Friends of the RNC 8.)