Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER: Once that trial started, I did everything I could to remove from my mind that these were Indians. To me, they were individuals accused of a crime, and it was my decision to make a judgment on them.

SPEAKER: The Indian people never give up. Why? How much I was indicted, but my spiritual power could not be indicted. More of the Indian people will stand tomorrow. And it's not going to be a 1976 happy birthday for the white government today of our Indian people. I will not see-- that will not be happening. Whole United States is ripoff by the white America. The government that rip off the whole United States that you could see now today.

SPEAKER: When they forcibly disarm government agents and point weapons at them and give reason to the agents that they are in danger, that they take personal possessions of the agents and not return them, that is, to me, a very serious situation.

SPEAKER: The trial in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, started out, as-- on a good foot. We thought it was going to be a good trial. We thought we had an unprejudiced judge and could pick a fair jury in Cedar Rapids. The contrary has proved to be true. We turned out to have a very racist hurry-up judge, who has refused to read what we considered very pertinent facts in our case when we made motions to dismiss.

And we feel that no matter what the verdict, acquittal or guilty, that we haven't received a fair trial here. We haven't been allowed to explain to the people what's happening in Indian country. We're totally dissatisfied with the way this judge has handled this case.

SPEAKER: It's not aimed at the American Indian Movement, it's aimed at specific activities, such as the armed seizure of Wounded Knee. That kind of activity we want to stop. We don't care what the name is that's given to the people who are engaged in it.

SPEAKER: The United States, true to form, has done everything within their power to suppress this story and to keep it out of this trial.

SPEAKER: The American Indian way of life-- how did the American Indians stand today with the federal government? That we could not see justice. Why? Yellow Thunder was murdered. Frank Clearwater was murdered. Pedro Bisonette was murdered. Larry Lamont was murdered. All our brothers that died in Wounded Knee was murdered by the federal government. We are sick and tired. But still, what happened to-- or justice that's been happening to us here now today in Cedar Rapids, the state of Iowa.

SPEAKER: And even though morally we may not have the right to impose our law or our customs upon another group for the sake of protection, to prevent anarchy, we really have no other choice.

SPEAKER: We don't think the government has proved a case. We don't think that any fair court or jury can convict. We are convinced that the government's case should have been thrown out, and we will rely on this record for a reversal in the event the jury were, for reasons not of the evidence but for reasons in their mind and heart, otherwise decide to find these defendants guilty.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: The defendants were three American Indians. They were found guilty. The conviction took place in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. And it came on June 5th, bringing to an end the seven so-called leadership cases arising from the 1973 rebellion at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. 33-year-old Carter Camp and 25-year-old Stanley Holder, both of Oklahoma, and 32-year-old Leonard Crow Dog, an Indian medicine man from South Dakota, who served as spiritual leader to the American Indian Movement, were convicted of interference with and robbery of four US postal inspectors who entered Wounded Knee early in the 10-week confrontation two years ago.

The interference and robbery charges were the final complaints stemming from an original 11-count grand jury indictment, an indictment filed against the defendants and four other aimed leaders-- Dennis Banks, Russell Means, Clyde Bellecourt, and Pedro Bissonette. All other government charges against the seven Indians have been dropped or dismissed or now are in the process of being withdrawn. The all-white jury in Cedar Rapids took less than two hours to return the guilty verdict-- a verdict which carried a maximum 18-year jail term and a fine of $5,000 for each defendant.

Evidence in the case, which was moved from South Dakota, unsuccessful change of venue motions, was presented through testimony from three of the four postal inspectors who had been held prisoner temporarily in Wounded Knee. The inspectors testified they were taken hostage on March 11th, 1973, when they entered the occupied trading post village to investigate a reported theft of the mails and, quote, "to ascertain the condition of the post office," unquote. This was two weeks into the 71-day armed conflict, a conflict which ultimately saw the deaths of three Indians, gunshot injuries to a dozen other Indians, and the wounding of two federal agents.

The inspectors testified they were forcibly detained in Wounded Knee for two hours, robbed of a government revolver, some personal possessions, and then released unharmed beyond the demilitarized zone of the village. Evidence in the case only thinly connected Camp, Holder, and Crow Dog to the offenses charged. There was little indication they had played a direct part in the capture or robbery of the armed inspectors. But government testimony suggested that the three had exercised a measure of authority in and about the Wounded Knee Museum where the captives were detained.

The prosecution then relied on an argument of aiding and abetting. And jury instructions from federal Judge Edward J. McManus dictated that guilt could be established if the defendants had knowingly and willfully associated themselves with other Wounded Knee occupants who may have directly committed the alleged crimes. In brief, one inspector testified that Stanley Holder had introduced himself in the museum as, quote, "the chief of security," unquote. Another said that Crow Dog had lectured them for 45 minutes on, quote, "the evils of the white man." And a third told the jury that Mr. Camp had explained their release only in light of an ultimatum from the FBI surrounding the village.

The trial lasted three days. The government rested after two days, and the defense moved for dismissal of the charges on grounds that proof of criminal action by the defendants had not been established. The motion was denied. However, the defense then insisted that the government's case was so, quote, "internally contradictory," unquote, and inconsistent from one inspector's recollection to another's, that it was unnecessary to present any of the nine subpoenaed defense witnesses.

The failure to present a defense may well have influenced the conviction. Jurors interviewed following the verdict indicated their decision was reached without any difficulty on the very first ballot. One member of the eight-man, four-women panel was Cecil Albright. Mr. Albright, an 80-year-old retired farmer from Cedar Rapids, said he thought the Indian leaders were guilty when they failed to testify in their own defense. Quote, "I think if they had something against me, I'd get up and speak my piece," unquote.

About 200 Indians took over Wounded Knee, a tiny hamlet on the Pine Ridge Reservation in Western South Dakota, on February 27th, 1973. They held out until the following May, defending their action on the basis of a 106-year-old agreement, the Fort Laramie Treaty. According to terms of the 1868 treaty, Congress guaranteed the eight Teton Sioux nations, quote, "undisturbed use," unquote, "of all lands in South Dakota west of the Missouri River, in addition to territories in present day Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and Nebraska."

The occupants chose Wounded Knee for its symbolic significance as a notorious massacre site. In 1890, a reorganized unit of General Armstrong Custer's Seventh Cavalry, defeated 14 years earlier at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, slew hundreds of Miniconjou Sioux, led by Chief Bigfoot, as well as scattered followers of the Hunkpapa Sioux leader Sitting Bull. The 1973 occupation addressed itself to grievances with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BIA, and charged elected Oglala Sioux tribal leaders on Pine Ridge with misuse of fundings and with employing a goon squad to wage a reign of terror on the reservation.

There was no doubt the occupation polarized the reservation. Commerce was disrupted, schools were closed, property destroyed, and families split in their loyalties. In 1974, a year after Wounded Knee, the divisiveness was born out in a highly contested election for tribal chairman. AIM leader Russell Means, an Oglala Sioux, was narrowly defeated by incumbent Richard Wilson. Means challenged the election in federal court, then on grounds of massive voter irregularities.

The Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief supporting Means' suit. And then the United States Civil Rights Commission did find evidence of voter fraud and recommended a new election. But the district court in South Dakota said it had no jurisdiction in that tribal matter. The suit then came before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. And only last month, after Chairman Wilson had served almost 3/4 of his term in office, the appellate judges overruled the district court and remanded the case to the South Dakota federal judge for review.

The reservation divisiveness, however, and its byproduct acts of violence since Wounded Knee, have placed Pine Ridge in a state approaching Civil War. Since Wounded Knee, almost 60 Indians have been murdered on that reservation. And in June of this year, one Indian and two FBI agents were slain in a blazing gun battle that threw Pine Ridge into a federal manhunt unparalleled in the state's history.

In all, over 500 persons were arrested two years ago in connection with the 10-week occupation of Wounded Knee. 185 felony indictments were issued. At this point, about 175 cases have been disposed of, either through plea negotiation or in federal trials-- trials held in South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. Only about 26 convictions, including a plea bargain of guilt for nine defendants in Rapid City, South Dakota, on the same day as the leadership conviction in Cedar Rapids, have been secured by the Justice Department.

The most celebrated Wounded Knee leadership case was the nine-month trial of Dennis Banks and Russell Means in St. Paul, Minnesota. Banks and Means were acquitted of 11 conspiracy charges after a federal judge ruled that government misconduct in the case had prejudiced their rights to a fair trial. The district court in Minnesota charged the prosecution, which was headed by R.D. Hurd, with deception and bad faith. And the court charged federal agents with illegal wiretaps at Wounded Knee.

The dismissal was also based on what the court found to be illegal use of the military at Wounded Knee and FBI alteration of trial evidence. Following the Wounded Knee dismissal in St. Paul, the government reduced the 11 charges against Carter Camp, Stanley Holder, and Leonard Crow Dog to the set involving the postal inspectors. Although until the time of the conviction, Crow Dog and Camp did face each one additional charge.

After the conviction on June 5th, assistant US attorney R.D. Hurd announced that the remaining counts would be dropped. Hurd said he is also recommending that all 11 charges against AIM leader Clyde Bellecourt be withdrawn by the Justice Department. The seventh indicted leader of the Wounded Knee uprising, Pedro Bissonette, was shotgunned to death by federal agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation in October of 1973, about six months after the occupation.

The conviction of the three Indian leaders in Cedar Rapids on June 5th came as a surprise to many court observers, especially reporters who had followed the case. The bureau chief, for example, of the Des Moines Register, the statewide paper in Iowa, was visibly shaken and had tears in his eyes. Quote, "Excuse me," he told another reporter. "I'm trying to retain my objectivity," quote, unquote. And an associated press writer whose stories the national media relied upon throughout the trial was moved after the conviction verdict to make a personal contribution of $40 to the Wounded Knee Legal Offense/Defense Committee.

The defendants themselves, however, did not appear as surprised as others at the outcome. Outside the federal courthouse, Carter Camp and Stan Holder met with the press. Camp spoke first.

CARTER CAMP: The fact is, we were tried by a fascist judge and a fascist court. And we knew that before. I told you guys at noon. No matter what the hell the verdict was, we knew what kind of court and what kind of judge we were dealing with. This don't come as any kind of a surprise.

At the same time, I want to warn this government and this government that's ruling our people that we haven't stopped yet. I mean, just because they found us guilty of these charges, don't mean that we're going to stop in the struggle. And this is only going to add more fire, more fuel to the fire of revolution in this country, because it's going to have to come now. This is going to make Indian people struggle a lot harder. And we can struggle in the prisons just as well as we can struggle on the street, and we're never going to quit.

It's nothing that we didn't expect. And the fight's just started. You're not going to have a happy birthday in 1976. And AIM guarantees that you're not going to have a happy birthday in 1976. The fight has just started. We're going to continue fighting. And no matter what this judge does. This verdict just doesn't make any difference. And it's only going to encourage our people to fight harder and show that there is no justice in this system.

From now on, Indian people will have to go to court. They're going to be listening to us. They're going to listen to the people of the American Indian Movement. They're going to believe us. You can't get a fair trial in America, because Indian people are not Americans.

STAN HOLDER: We were three Indian men tried by an all white jury in an all-white court. This just proves something to us that we've known for a long time, that Indians can't receive justice in America. That Indians can't receive justice under a white judicial system. I think it makes us realize that this is a time for strength. It's a time for us to build continuity with the Creator. It's time for us to look back at those old spirits like Crazy Horse and realize that those men didn't fight for anything.

It makes us realize that we have our women and children and our future to look forward to, and that 13 years of my life is a small price to pay for the future for my children.

INTERVIEWER 1: How do you evaluate the appeal, Stan?

STAN HOLDER: I really don't know. I think we have excellent grounds for appeal. But once again, this is going to be handled by a bunch of white men. And it's obvious that the intent of these trials is to destroy the American Indian Movement, not to bring justice. If justice was the name of the game, we'd have walked out of here free men today.

INTERVIEWER 2: What are you planning to do now in Cedar Rapids?

STAN HOLDER: Well tonight, I intend to go back to camp and have a spiritual ceremony. Talk to God, talk to my people, and tell them to get ready because the war is still on.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Defendant Stanley Holder. Before him, Defendant Carter Camp. Later in the day on June 5th, R.D. Hurd, who had lost the major Wounded Knee leadership case in St. Paul, reacted to the guilty verdict in Cedar Rapids.

R.D. HURD: Well, I think the jury clearly did the right thing under the evidence in the case. And I felt that the trial was conducted in a proper manner.

INTERVIEWER 3: Were you surprised by the fact that the trial was so abbreviated?

R.D. HURD: Yes, I was surprised. I expected them to put on some kind of a case.

INTERVIEWER 3: Could you speculate on the motive of the defense in not going forward and presenting even one of the nine subpoenaed witnesses?

R.D. HURD: Well, I think they had some hard problems. The makeup of the jury, I think, was selected to rely upon the insufficiency of the evidence. None of the witnesses that they subpoenaed would have been able to help in that regard. And in fact, it probably would have implicated the defendants more on sufficiency of the evidence. So I think they had cast their die with the idea of trying to convince the jury that the evidence was insufficient. There wasn't much else they could do.

INTERVIEWER 3: What do you think was the turning point in the case from the prosecution standpoint?

R.D. HURD: Oh, I don't think there really was a turning point. In essence, we only called three witnesses, and two of them contributed to the defendant's participation. There was never any dispute that the crime occurred. It was just a question of participation. As I told the jury when I began, it was very simple case. We kept it simple. I don't think there was a particular turning point.

INTERVIEWER 3: Was there any particular reason that visual evidence against the defendants was not used in the St. Paul trial? Films were available, and some of these films depicted the incident of the capturing of the postal inspectors.

R.D. HURD: Well, I decided to try to keep the trial as simple as possible in terms of the evidence. I didn't want to interject anything into the trial which would take away from the central issue of the defendant's participation in a specific crime. And when you start putting in TV, film, and this type of thing, you run the danger of broadening the issue. I decided that better to keep it simple.

INTERVIEWER 3: Do you feel in any way vindicated after the dismissal up in St. Paul of the Banks and Means case?

R.D. HURD: No, I don't think so. I never felt the need to be vindicated personally or professionally. And so I don't have that reaction.

INTERVIEWER 3: Do you think that the conviction here, really the first conviction in the Wounded Knee leadership cases, will damage the American Indian Movement?

R.D. HURD: Well, I don't think it's going to damage the American Indian Movement as such. I don't know exactly how active these individuals have been on a day by day basis in the American Indian Movement. I look at it simply as three individuals who were found guilty of committing a crime.

INTERVIEWER 3: But there is a lot of sentiment in your home state of South Dakota against the American Indian Movement, and surely that's one consideration.

R.D. HURD: Well, I think that there is sentiment against the American Indian Movement in a variety of places, particularly insofar as they have been found to engage in militant activities. But I don't feel that the conviction of any particular individuals is going to damage any movement as such. I've never found that to be the case in the past.

INTERVIEWER 3: Conversely, do you think it would have a martyring effect and advance the American Indian Movement?

R.D. HURD: No, I really don't. I don't really think that conviction of these individuals on these charges are going to affect the future of the American Indian Movement a great deal one way or the other. I would hope that the fact that they were prosecuted may tend to deter others from committing similar crimes. And insofar as a conviction might deter others from committing similar crimes, I suppose it's going to have an effect on any type of militant movement. But I don't think it has any particular effect upon the American Indian Movement as such. Maybe the activities of it.

INTERVIEWER 3: Do you think the defense lawyers in the instant case here in Cedar Rapids might have been more effective had they tried to do what was done in St. Paul? That is, to present a kind of political defense to the charges.

R.D. HURD: Well, it's hard to speculate as to what might have happened. I don't think that the charges in the instant case lent themselves very well to a political defense. In the absence of a conspiracy charge, which opens the door for a variety of things, I don't see how a political defense could effectively be presented. I think also that it became very clear early in the trial that the court was going to attempt to have the issue determined that the issue of defendant's guilt, as opposed to any other issues in the trial itself, gave them a full hearing on their misconduct motion. But when it comes to the question of the issue of the defendant's guilt, I think he made it clear that that's what he wanted tried in this lawsuit.

INTERVIEWER 3: Was the reason that the US attorney and the Justice Department determined to pair the original 11 count indictment against Crow Dog, Holder, and Camp to only the two charges and attempt to avert or preclude that kind of political defense that was seen in St. Paul, Minnesota?

R.D. HURD: Well, to a certain degree, probably. However, essentially the 11 count indictment had been pretty well picked away at anyway. We'd lost the burglary count, we'd lost the arson count, we'd lost one of the larceny counts. The civil disorder counts had been thrown out by the court. So it was pretty well pared down anyway. So the question was, should we try them on what would be essentially a conspiracy case, or should we attempt to evolve substantive offenses?

We decided to evolve substantive offenses because it's a less costly method of a trial. And it should shorten the trial time. Make it much more simpler and get to the issue of guilt for a specific crime. I feel, at least particularly now, that the verdict is guilty, that we made the right decision.

INTERVIEWER 3: How do you evaluate the allegations of terror on the Pine Ridge Reservation before and more so in the newspapers, reportedly since Wounded Knee?

R.D. HURD: I have a strong feeling that militant movements sometimes go out and seek issues which cause emotional strain on underlying problems. And this erupts into violence. In other words, the underlying problems on the reservation have been there for a long time. They were there before the American Indian Movement came on to the scene. The militancy of the American Indian Movement, I think, caused an eruption, a violent eruption, in the approach that people take to those problems.

INTERVIEWER 3: Do you feel the violence was a reaction on the part of the American Indian Movement, or that the American Indian Movement caused the violence?

R.D. HURD: I wouldn't want to put the blame on any one group or any group of people for the violence. It's there. It's unfortunate. Our job is to prosecute those who commit the crime, regardless of whether they're American Indian Movement, not American Indian Movement. We don't really think of it in terms of the American Indian Movement.

INTERVIEWER 3: Are you saying, in effect, that AIM does not create problems, but in these instances has exposed underlying problems?

R.D. HURD: Well, what I think I'm saying is this, is that acts of violence and criminal acts are committed by individuals. Now why an individual might commit a criminal act might be because of the activity of an organization or because of underlying problems. And it's awfully hard to look into individual acts of violence. Most of the violence on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is not the organized kind. It's not a movement type. It's not a demonstration type. It's not like the situation of Wounded Knee itself. It's individual acts of violence between individuals.

It's awfully hard to look at those and say this is because of a particular organization or a particular idea, because you have to deal with them individually. I'm not familiar enough with the individual actions of the Pine Ridge Reservation to make a good judgment.

INTERVIEWER 3: Those underlying problems in South Dakota of which we speak in respect to Indians are, what, racism? Substandard living conditions? Discrimination?

R.D. HURD: Well, I think that the biggest problem on the Indian reservation is the lack of opportunity and the lack of a quality way of life. And I think that everybody bears the responsibility for that, the Indian and the non-Indian. I'm not sure that I know what the solution is, but I think that an Indian reservation generally is a depressing place to live with a minimum amount of opportunity.

And I think that kind of social condition creates a climate whereby acts of violence are apt to occur. That does not mean that you can look to any particular institution or any particular individual to blame for it. The situations on Indian reservations have not been good for many, many years.

INTERVIEWER 3: Do you share the view that the American Indian Movement has brought an element of hope through a spiritual awakening to oppressed peoples on reservations?

R.D. HURD: I don't see a great deal of evidence of that. I think that the American Indian Movement is just one vehicle by which some people attempt to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. I don't think that it has brought any real awakening of spiritual values. I believe most traditional Indians who follow the traditional ways and the traditional religion do not seize upon criminal activity as a method of expressing their beliefs.

INTERVIEWER 3: You would reject the notion that the Justice Department, of which you are a representative, has in any way tried to do away with the American Indian Movement or to stop it as a movement among Indian people?

R.D. HURD: Well, I certainly have no reason to believe that there has been any attempt to do away with the American Indian Movement as such. There has been, I think, an honest effort to attempt to stop militant action which endangers the lives of other people, endangers property. But that's the only extent that there is an attempt by the part of the Justice Department or any other organization to stop a movement. It's not aimed at the American Indian Movement, it's aimed at specific activities, such as the armed seizure of Wounded Knee. That kind of activity, we want to stop. We don't care what the name is that's given to the people who are engaged in it.

INTERVIEWER 3: Do you think the conviction of the three Indian leaders here today in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, will further that end?

R.D. HURD: You always hope that criminal convictions will have a deterrent to people who are thinking of attempting a similar type of crime. It's really very difficult to speculate as to how good a deterrent it is, whether or not it really works. You always hope that it will help. But there is really no way of measuring whether or not it actually does.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Prosecutor R.D. Hurd. Following the conviction in Cedar Rapids, I tried to speak with members of the jury. With one exception, all refused anything but abbreviated telephone interviews. The one exception was juror James Cole, a 35-year-old Cedar Rapids insurance man.

JAMES COLE: We feel that we did the right thing. We made a decision based on a criminal act. However, I really wonder if they realize or understand that they did commit a criminal act for the purpose of drawing attention to their problems and for the purpose of attempting to improve the plight of their people. Even though it is a different type of situation, again, it's still a criminal act, and it is not our duty to make a moral judgment or take into account that their aims were something different than what a normal assault and battery would involve. It was simply a criminal act, and I feel that no exceptions should be made.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Was it difficult, do you think, in the minds of the jury to bring a conviction for interference with postal inspectors and the robbery of a gun from one of the federal men when no evidence in the case suggested that any of the defendants directly participated in the capture or in the actual robbery of the gun?

JAMES COLE: No. The instructions that the judge gave us were quite clear in that aiding or abetting in a crime is just as serious as the actual perpetration of the crime by an individual. And we were certain that the defendants were not even present at the original blockade and when the postal inspectors were brought into the museum. They may have given the orders, but that was not covered and that was not a part of our decision.

The prosecution and the defense both agreed that the three defendants were in the museum. Personal property was taken from the postal inspectors. What we felt was aiding and abetting is statements made by the defendants such as Stanley Holder, saying he was chief of security. He came in and left the museum several times. He exerted a influence of authority. In other words, it was he apparently had some leadership going on there.

Also, Leonard Crow dog using the term "prisoners of war" and relating rights under the Geneva Convention would certainly indicate to me active participation in a criminal act. Carter Camp was also present. Even though a watch and maybe one or two other personal articles was returned, at no time did the three defendants offer to return the personal articles of the postal inspectors.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Did you feel that everyone who was present in the museum at that time-- and it was mentioned that there may have been as many as 50 observers. Did you feel that each of these men who in this trial was unnamed, that each of these men was also guilty of aiding and abetting by his presence there?

JAMES COLE: I can't really say that. They may have come upon the scene and did not actively involve themselves in the events. Then it's difficult to say if by simply standing by and not taking any action to reduce the tension or to help the inspectors, if this is aiding or abetting, I do not know. And we can't make a decision on that.

But to me, the three defendants were more than just casual spectators there. They made statements. They did certain things which clearly indicated to me that they were more than spectators, that they were aiding and abetting in the perpetration of a crime.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: What about Carter Camp? His only statement through the evidence that we know here in the trial was to tell the inspectors who were hostages in the Wounded Knee Museum that they were going to be released.

JAMES COLE: He came into the museum and indicated that the postal inspectors should be released. Because if they weren't, the FBI would probably come in and get them. He led the inspectors out of the museum and ordered them into the back of a pickup.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: And you felt that his motives were not releasing the inspectors at that point.

JAMES COLE: No, I did not.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: How did you evaluate the demeanor of the defendants during the course of the trial?

JAMES COLE: They would not rise when the judge entered the courtroom.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Was that something that was a shock to the other jurors?

JAMES COLE: No. I suppose in a way, we expected that and we observed it. But during our deliberations, their behavior was not even brought up.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Did you think when the postal inspector said that Leonard Crow Dog had told them that they were prisoners of war, when that statement came out in court, did you feel that here were two different cultures, one on one side and one on the other? And now here in the courtroom, one culture was being subjected to the legal system of the other culture, the dominant one.

JAMES COLE: I feel that in the United states or perhaps any other country, a uniform system of laws have to be put into force for uniform justice for all people. If we make an exception for one class, then we would have to make an exception or set a precedent for everyone else. And yes, in a way, I suppose we were injecting our laws upon a group of people who do not necessarily subscribe to those laws, period.

However, I felt that that was not a real issue in this case. That our duty was simply to determine if a criminal act had been committed. And if it was clear in our minds that these defendants were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it was our duty to convict them.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Do you feel that if this class, the class of which you speak, the American Indians in this country, do not subscribe to the laws of the country, they should be forced to do so by the dominant society?

JAMES COLE: I wish there was another way to answer this, but I'm going to have to say yes, they are going to have to subscribe to the dominant force in this country. And even though morally, we may not have the right to impose our law or our customs upon another group for the sake of protection and to prevent anarchy, we really have no other choice.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Do you have any gut reaction to the whole thing at this point?

JAMES COLE: Let me just say that I'm sympathetic to the Indian cause. I think they have legitimate grievances. I think they are in a serious plight. They're in a very difficult situation. However, comma, I had to remove that sympathetic feeling in the jury room, and that I felt my duty was not to make or pass moral or ethical judgments on their motives or their beliefs, but to simply make a decision based on a legal framework.

And if criminal acts were committed and I felt that they were guilty, then it was my sole responsibility to convict them of the crimes that-- of the charges that were made against them.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Juror James Cole. In a motel room after the conviction, Defendant Leonard Crow Dog sat with his wife and his son, Pedro, a two-year-old boy born inside Wounded Knee during the rebellion. Crow Dog seemed more surprised at the conviction than did his co-defendants Carter Camp and Stanley Holder. And Crow Dog, whose second language is English, first expressed his incredulity that in view of the killing of Indians at Wounded Knee by federal agents, the government would then indict occupants of the village on such charges as those of capturing the postal inspectors.

LEONARD CROW DOG: Where is Clearwater and Lamont? When Clearwater was murdered, when Pedro Bissonette was murdered by the federal officers. And when Larry Lamont was murdered, is there any indictments on the-- Mrs. Lamont have opportunity or have a chance to file a indictment on the federal government. And is that a murder, or is that just another Indian being killed in the reservation that he's a bad man among Indians?

So from that time, my view, the way I seen, and this-- the whole-- I thought that the 12 juries will know the justice of our Indian people. But I think by froce, by force by the judge and by the representative of the government, I think they misconstrued the whole-- they didn't see it on the Indian side. They didn't well investigate on the Indian side. The postal inspectors not telling the right truth to the government or the defendants on each side.

INTERVIEWER 4: According to his testimony, that of one of the inspectors, you told him and told the other inspectors, you are prisoners of war in Wounded Knee, and you will have rights under the Geneva Convention.

LEONARD CROW DOG: I do not say that. I do not say you are the prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention. I do not say. But only thing that I know, when any government official that's going to come into the premises of Wounded Knee take over, they must come through the leaders. Then, if they're going to inspect the post office, they must they must come through representative by motion so we could meet with them. Then they could come in and inspect the post office.

But they do not go into the post office. So on the post office, they could not know that the building is burned. So who could know, and who could prove? And I was not a security. The government should understand and the 12 jurors should understand I'm not a security. I was a spiritual man. Just like the army, when the armed forces going into war, they have a chaplain there. But on the Indian side, I'm the spiritual man there inside Wounded Knee.

INTERVIEWER 4: No testimony in the trial indicated that you or Carter Camp or Stan Holder took part in the capture. And you indicate that that was done by men in security, the men who manned the Indian roadblocks.

LEONARD CROW DOG: So that's a poor statement the government made.

INTERVIEWER 4: Testimony in the case indicated that the men, the four postal inspectors, were stopped at a Wounded Knee roadblock. They were taken in by unnamed Indian individuals to the Wounded Knee Museum, where they were disarmed and divested of some of their personal possessions. Now, evidence also indicated that 50 or 60 individuals, including members of the national news media, may have witnessed the events in the Wounded Knee Museum.

According to the first testimony given about you, Leonard Crow Dog, one inspector had you as a guard near the museum in the group of 50 to 60 individuals. Testimony in the trial indicated that he recognized you, though, from photographs after the event.

LEONARD CROW DOG: Yeah, he could not recognize me there. So it should be closed statement. This is Crow Dog. He could have said, this is Crow Dog. The mistake that he made. I don't know if he was inside the courtroom when he said, well, that's Crow Dog. Then after heard or one of the prosecutors there said stand up, then he said, no. The guy wearing a red shirt is Crow Dog. So he could not understand and he could not recognize us there immediately.

INTERVIEWER 4: And the man in the red shirt that was in the courtroom was Carter Camp.

LEONARD CROW DOG: Yeah, Carter Camp was then. But so the juries should understand that that's all false mistake and false justice.

INTERVIEWER 4: Do you believe that the inspector lied about the identification?

LEONARD CROW DOG: Yeah, he lied. He could not understand which one. We're all sitting down, so he could not understand or he could not recognize us.

INTERVIEWER 4: There were also problems in identification. Once the inspectors were inside the museum, testimony indicated that they were loosely bound to a bench. And during the period of their detention, they were lectured on, quote, "the evils of the white man," unquote. One inspector said that the man who lectured them for 45 minutes was you. Another inspector indicated that many individuals, or at least several, may have done the lecturing.

LEONARD CROW DOG: I lectured to them. I talked to them. Did you have informed the security of the Wounded Knee security headman? Or do you have negotiated with the government? You are the government, so you should have let us know before you come in. That's why we're just going to-- that's why you're released.

INTERVIEWER 4: What else did you tell them during the time in which you spoke to them?

LEONARD CROW DOG: Well, this is how I said. The 1890 Wounded Knee, by that time, we don't speak English. But now we could speak English. 1890 and 1973, Wounded Knee, now we can understand. The evidence of the evidence. The evidence of the so many hundreds Indians was murdered and slaughtered at Wounded Knee, 1890.

The evidence, the bullets, the bones could be dissolved. But the bullets of the seven cavalry bullets will not dissolve. So evidence is there. And at that time, if we have archeologists and pathologists, we could dig up the body and we could find out there. But still, the bullet is still there. So now today, when we show-- when he was coming in, you should have you should have told us, the leaders of the American Indian Movement, so we could deal and you could see the post office.

But you didn't go into post office. So you think the Indian problem is just a minor problem. But you are the problem. That's why you're doing. You do not respect the Indian way of life. You do not understand Indian way of life. But remember, we speak a language. And you've been with us too long, but you could not speak the language that we speak.

So I told him, we use sacred ways of way of our life. So that's my statement. And next man was Black Elk made his lecture, but I wasn't in there at the time.

INTERVIEWER 4: Some jurors in the case with whom I've spoken said that they were convinced of your guilt partially by the testimony of one inspector who said he gave you the keys to his locked briefcase in the trunk of the government postal car and later found that his revolver was missing from that briefcase. And robbery of a government revolver was the second of the two counts.

LEONARD CROW DOG: He should remember first who drove the car to the museum. Then from there, if there's going to be a justice, who opened the trunk first? The trunk of the car, and who opened the briefcase keys. And then, who's got the gun? They should have both sides. We should make a stand on the both sides, make our statements. The government made false statements that he could not understand. You could not-- was inside a building, and you could not testify outside what is happening. You're inside a building, and you don't know what's happening and you don't know who got the gun. So you come to the brass tacks. They must they must bring the whole life of our Indian people, of Wounded Knee.

INTERVIEWER 4: Were the keys to the briefcase containing the gun given to you?

LEONARD CROW DOG: No. In my life, I never carry a gun. I never handle the guns.

INTERVIEWER 4: Most of the jurors felt that the government was successful in showing that even if there was no direct evidence connecting you and Mr. Holder and Mr. Camp with the theft of the gun or with the interference with the inspectors, that is the capture, even if there was no direct evidence that the three of you acted as if you were leaders in Wounded Knee. And therefore, as the judge's instructions to the jury indicated, could be guilty of aiding and abetting those two crimes.

LEONARD CROW DOG: So I'm the leader of Indian tribes that I could say. So since the Banks and Means case was dropped, we are the leaders. We represent the tribes. We represent the Brule Siouxs, the Sioux nation, the Sioux tribe, and the other people representing their tribes.

He could not call me as a spiritual-- the government could not call me as a spiritual man. He said, that's just another Indian named Crow Dog. But remember, if this is going to go on the news, remember, I'm a spiritual man. I'm a spiritual leader. I'm something like the other priests and the priests of this nice state of Christianity life. So a lot of people understand a lot of calls I've been getting why Crow Dog's going to-- got to be sentenced or got to be sent to penitentiaries. So you could understand, and you will understand our life of our Indian people.

INTERVIEWER 4: You've talked before about Christianity and you've talked before about the Ten Commandments. What is it you feel as a spiritual man in your own Indian religion?

LEONARD CROW DOG: If the Ten Commandments will keep, if the government and the Christianity people, the government of the people, if they keep the Ten Commandments, they could preserve-- the indictments could become of 1890. They do not keep the Ten Commandments, so that's why the Indians are now indicted all over the country. What little Indians stand, take up for his rights? He's got to be indicted. He's got to be sentenced to penitentiary, reformatory, or so many years parole. Probation.

They stole the whole Western hemisphere. They rip off the whole Western hemisphere. They're living a lie. Why they're living a lie? The violation of the Ten Commandments. So the Ten Commandments, only Indians could take care of the Ten Commandments. Not the federal government. Or I'm sure there is a white man someplace in this world that could understand Indian problem.

We are people that could speak. We could understand. We've been living here in this Western hemisphere [INAUDIBLE] a lot of years of our generation. So now, we do understand. But the government mistreat us so many years now. We've been sending our generation to foster homes, to mental institutions, all these institutions the government had put here in this Western hemisphere.

Now what he's trying to do, he's trying to send me off where I could stay and where I could be civilized. But already been civilized. I will not go to hell. Whether they put me into penitentiary or reformatory, any institution, I'm not going to go to hell. All my sins, if they say, if I had sins, the government will carry my sins. If they say I had sins. But remember, I will not go to hell. Why? We don't have hell. We live in hell. And who are the hell is the government.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Defendant Leonard crow Dog. At the time of conviction, US District Judge Edward J. McManus took under advisement several motions from the defense which could have influenced or even nullified the Indian leader's conviction. They were dismissal motions, and the most significant of the motions was filed during a week-long evidentiary hearing prior to the start of the postal charges trial.

Stacks of affidavits accompanied numerous testimony introduced in a defense motion, contending that Prosecutor Hurd's office had deceived the court and had engaged in selective law enforcement on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The alleged deception involved the failure to notify the court that at least one FBI agent penetrated the defendant's legal camp and sat in on meetings involving trial strategy.

Among exhibits introduced as evidence in another part of the motion, evidence of selective prosecution by the government, were statistics comparing the overall criminal conviction rates nationally with those in Wounded Knee cases adjudicated until that point. These statistics indicated that convictions obtained from Wounded Knee indictments were only 7.7%. While on the other hand, a government summary of criminal cases over the past few years in federal courts showed a conviction rate of 78%.

Defense lawyers argued that this discrepancy, coupled with court disclosed Justice Department documents revealing that numerous unprosecutable Wounded Knee cases were nonetheless prosecuted by the government, showed evidence that the American Indian Movement had been subjected to a misuse of the judicial process. One of the many witnesses in the evidentiary hearing was Kent Frizzell, the Solicitor General for the Interior Department. Mr. Frizzell told the court that he was assaulted in April of 1973 at a, quote, "goon squad roadblock," unquote, near Wounded Knee. A roadblock manned by supporters of tribal chairman Richard Wilson, an opponent of the occupation.

Frizzell was then the assistant US attorney general and the chief government negotiator with Indian occupants inside Wounded Knee. Frizzell testified that an armed man pointed a gun at his head as he, Frizzell, tried to drive his car through the roadblock. The incident was resolved when Wayne Coleburn, the director of the United States Marshals Service and a passenger in Frizzell's car at the time, leveled a loaded carbine at the assailant and threatened his life if he fired upon Mr. Frizzell.

Although the assault was witnessed by these two top law enforcement officials and by an FBI agent, Mr. Frizzell testified that the man at the roadblock was never identified, investigated, or arrested. The defense in Cedar Rapids subpoenaed Kent Frizzell in an attempt to show that a double standard of justice exists in South Dakota for Indians and that the government brought prosecutions against only the American Indian Movement members for activities during the 1973 takeover at Wounded Knee.

The defense dismissal motion also charged that the government had used false and perjured testimony in several Wounded Knee prosecutions. That the prosecution had willfully violated court orders. That the government had illegally employed electronic surveillance, and had covered up the role of the Pentagon in the Wounded Knee siege. Assistant US attorney R.D. Hurd denied the charges of government misconduct.

Federal judge McManus termed the dismissal motion itself, that is, at the time of conviction to be, quote, "serious and non-frivolous," unquote. But later, he ruled against all the dismissal motions, indicating at one point in his ruling that the government had not engaged in such a degree of misconduct, quote, "which would irreparably prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial," unquote.

On August 5th of this year, two months after their conviction in Cedar Rapids, Crow Dog, Camp, and Holder were scheduled for sentencing back in Cedar Rapids. Only Crow Dog appeared. The Sioux medicine man was given three years on interference with postal inspectors and eight years on the charge of theft of a government revolver. The prison terms to run concurrently.

But Judge McManus suspended Crow Dog's penitentiary time and placed him on five years probation. In doing so, McManus condemned the takeover of Wounded Knee, declaring that he knew of no, quote, "sadder incident in our recent life as a society," unquote. But the judge noted that Crow Dog had no significant criminal record, and he said that the court had received letters requesting leniency for the medicine man from as far away as France and the Netherlands.

Most of the letters came from the United States. But they came from educators, publishers, and social scientists. But one letter came from television personality Dick Cavett. Cavett's letter provided detailed praise for Crow Dog's leadership among Indians and for other achievements. The letter ended with some advice for the judge. Quote, "There are a lot of bad people around. Leonard Crow Dog is not one of them," unquote.

After sentencing Crow Dog, Judge McManus ordered the Wounded Knee bonds of Carter Camp and Stan Holder forfeited to the court and then issued fugitive arrest warrants for the pair. After the sentencing of Crow Dog and later in the day outside the federal courthouse, prosecutor R.D. Hurd reacted to the probationary sentence given the defendant.

R.D. HURD: Well, I said what I thought was appropriate at the time of sentencing. The matter of sentencing is entirely a matter within the court, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to criticize the court.

INTERVIEWER 5: Did you expect discretion? Did you expect it?

R.D. HURD: I'm not surprised. I believe very much what I said, that this was a case that deserved time. But that's not my function. That's the court's function, and he's exercised it.

INTERVIEWER 5: Do you feel that because Crow Dog was seen by many people that were mentioned in the judge's account of the recommendations that were given on behalf of the defendant, that he was a spiritual leader of the Sioux people? That this had a mitigating effect on the penitentiary time that was suspended?

R.D. HURD: Well, that was the intent, I am sure. I can't speak as to what effect. It actually had on the court, and I wouldn't attempt to.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Prosecutor R.D. Hurd. Defense attorney Ken Tilson had sharp words for her during the courtroom sentencing. Tilson maintained that the assistant US attorney had failed to comply with court orders to turn over photographs used in the trial against the defendants. Tilson first reacted, though, to the suspended sentence.

KEN TILSON: Well, I'm pleased, obviously. I think that that was appropriate to grant probation. But I'm disappointed in the court's rulings on the motion. I'm convinced that the real criminal sat on the other side of the council table. That Mr. Hurd is, in fact, the real criminal. That, in fact, Mr. Hurd knows that Mr. Crow Dog is innocent. I'm somewhat surprised at the offhand way in which the disclosure that Mr. Hurd lied to the court was simply passed over. His failure to deliver critical pictures as he was ordered to. His statement to the court that he didn't have the pictures, I think, are critical to the case. And I think that Mr. Hurd has been exposed for what we've all known him to be-- a dishonest man.

INTERVIEWER 5: In what ways did he deceive the court?

R.D. HURD: He said he didn't have the pictures that the postal inspectors looked at. We now know he did have them and does have them. And he told the court that he gave us all the pictures he had. And we know that's not true.

INTERVIEWER 5: How would this have fit into the case for the defense?

R.D. HURD: Well, it would have been very important, because the postal inspectors said that they never had an opportunity to identify the defendants after the event and that the first opportunity several of them had was just before trial, almost two years after the event. It now appears that they looked at pictures of Mr. Crow Dog, Mr. Camp, Mr. Holder on March 11th, when the event was fresh in their mind. Probably looked at dozens of pictures of them and did not identify them as the people that did these events.

INTERVIEWER 5: Do you feel that this would have changed the defense strategy and tactic in not putting on a case?

R.D. HURD: Well, it would have changed the entire trial. I don't know whether it would have changed that strategy and tactic with respect to that. I feel that there just wasn't any case. I still feel there wasn't any case, and I feel reasonably confident the Court of Appeals will agree with me.

INTERVIEWER 5: On what grounds do you intend to appeal the case?

R.D. HURD: On the grounds-- several. First of all and foremost, that there was not sufficient evidence to convict them. Secondly, that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct and in the disclosures he made and the disclosures he failed to make. Third, on the failure to grant a new trial because of the new evidence of the new pictures. Finally, I think that we will raise the question of the basic bad faith and discriminatory prosecution. The electronic surveillance to which there has never been an adequate response by the government. The denial of a speedy trial, to which the court just denied this morning. And there are probably several others that I'm not commenting on right now.

INTERVIEWER 5: In view of the fact that you said you were pleased with the ruling for probation, what reason do you feel that there is a need for appeal now?

R.D. HURD: Because he's innocent. He's definitely innocent. Why shouldn't he appeal? He should be acquitted. The charges should be thrown out.

INTERVIEWER 6: To what do you attribute the loss here in Cedar Rapids?

R.D. HURD: I attribute it to our failing to recognize just how deeply the racism pervades the average juror and how much the jurors were willing to accept and how much evidence they were willing to accept from their knowledge of the general events at Wounded Knee without any evidence being presented in the courtroom. I attribute it essentially to the fact that the record contains nothing on which the jury could convict him. And the jury then convicted him out of what was in their own head. Namely, their knowledge that something bad took place at Wounded Knee, and that these are strange and exotic and weird people, these Indians. And therefore, they're guilty.

INTERVIEWER 6: You still don't regret not putting the defendants on the stand?

R.D. HURD: I regret a lot about the trial, that there's very much that we would do different. Whether we would do that different, I can't say. I regret that we had a trial at all in this country, when the basic government theme of the trial was dishonest. I regret that anybody, and especially my clients, have to stand trial under these circumstances. I'm not sure that it would have made any difference if the defendants took the stand or not if this is the kind of jury-- in view of the kind of jury that we ultimately turned out that we had. I feel particularly bad that we had this major loss down here. But it was totally unexpected. We're convinced that it will be reversed.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Defense attorney Ken Tilson. Tilson's contention of government misconduct in the trial was denied by Prosecutor Hurd. Following the sentencing, Defendant Leonard Crow Dog met with the press, and Crow Dog adamantly insisted that he was innocent of the charges.

LEONARD CROW DOG: I could not rob a gun inside Wounded Knee. Only what I have is my peace pipe and my sacred medicine bundle. I do not make no stand when the jury was making the conviction of me that I was guilty.

INTERVIEWER 7: That's why that you didn't take any steps to present a defense in your own behalf?

LEONARD CROW DOG: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER 7: What do you feel you will do now? Do you feel that this probation of five years will have a limiting effect on your life?

LEONARD CROW DOG: The American Indians, we are already in probation. Since the time of the first government institute of the Western hemisphere.

INTERVIEWER 7: So you don't think this probation will be any different from the one that your people have been under for a long time?

LEONARD CROW DOG: No, it will not. But it will make me teach my Indian people more of our Indian way of life.

INTERVIEWER 7: Do you feel that you will do that now as you return to the Rosebud Reservation?

LEONARD CROW DOG: I will start immediately the day I get back to my own Indian tribes. And I will teach my tribes various-- the 89 tribes, I will teach them.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: Leonard Crow Dog. During the Annual Sioux Indian Sundance Religious Rites, which took place in South Dakota, a few days before the sentencing in Iowa, Crow Dog resigned as AIM's spiritual leader following an apparent dispute with other movement leaders. Crow Dog now faces five years of government supervised probation unless his conviction is overturned.

As for Carter Camp and Stanley Holder, they are being sought throughout the country as fugitives. As is AIM leader Dennis Banks, who coincidentally was scheduled for sentencing on August 5th as well. But on state charges in Custer, South Dakota, stemming from a protest which predated Wounded Knee. He, too, has gone underground.

Other Wounded Knee leaders. Pedro Bissonette is dead. Russell Means, well, means faces between six and nine felony trials for actions since Wounded Knee. Of the seven Indian leaders charged by the government at Wounded Knee, only Clyde Bellecourt remains in the public eye with a relatively open and free future before him. And yet, it's impossible to predict the future of the overall American Indian Movement or of other activist movements in America.

The conviction in Cedar Rapids is a case in point. The government may regard the conviction as an example. Perhaps a deterrent to future action similar to Wounded Knee. But many citizens who have witnessed the phenomenon of Indian activism over the past few years are not persuaded by the deterrent theory. Cedar Rapids juror James Cole.

JAMES COLE: No, I don't think so. I think, in fact, it may just go the other way. They may just put forth their aims more strongly in the future. Even though they're going to have to be subject to our laws. They themselves really don't comprehend or don't really believe in our system anyway. So I don't think this will have any bearing upon them at all.

KEVIN MCKIERNAN: James Cole. And with a look at the conviction in Cedar Rapids, this is Kevin McKiernan.