Cronkite school of journalism at
Arizona state university.
Geoff: As we reported, a jury in
Michigan found two men accused
of plotting to kidnap governor
Gretchen Whitmer not guilty
today, and failed to reach a
verdict against two others.
John yang has our report.
John: Geoff, this was a case
that made headlines just a month
before the 2020 election and
amid protests over government
handling of the pandemic.
Federal prosecutors alleged a
plot to kidnap a sitting
governor from her vacation home
in hopes of disrupting the
presidential race and maybe even
sparking a civil war.
To help us understand today's
acquittals and mistrials in the
we are joined by mark chutkow, a
former federal prosecutor in
Michigan.
Thanks for joining this.
It sure seemed like the
prosecutors had a lot of
evidence here.
They had accused conspirators
who turned state's evidence,
they had FBI agents, they had
secret recordings.
We don't know what happened in
the jury room, but what do you
think happened here?
Mark: As you say, it is a bit
speculation to find out what
happened in the jury room
because they have not talked.
I think there was underlying
tensions in this case.
One is where you draw the line
between protected free speech
and a criminal conspiracy.
It was something that the
government had to grapple in
this case, especially with the
polarizing issues you had raised
about the pandemic and the
shutdown.
Second, the question is how far
can the government go to be
involved in the conspiracy plot?
Here the defense vigorously
raised issues of entrapment,
both by the government informant
and turned to the state, and
undercover agents and
cooperating defendants.
Third, on the flipside is how
far can the government take this
before they pull the plug?
I have worked with FBI agents
before and there is a constant
tension of, do we let the plot
go on longer so we can build a
better case, or do we pull the
plug because we don't want
anyone to be harmed?
The concern is if the informant
loses access to the
conspirators, then the
government loses control and no
one knows what happens next.
John: Among the things the
prosecution had, they accused
conspirators pleading guilty and
testifying against other
defendants.
Does that usually carry weight
with juries?
Mark: It usually carries a lot
of weight.
In this case the defense was
arguing that the government
entrapped them.
By the government being able to
bring forward two people that
were involved in the conspiracy
who said, no, the government did
not push me to do this, I accept
responsibility for the fact that
I did conspire to kidnap the
governor, and the people on
trial were participating with
me, that ordinarily is
compelling evidence that often
times reassures a juror that
there is proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.
John: The defense argued these
guys were just talking, this is
free speech about how much they
hate the government, but they
actually took actions as well,
didn't they?
Mark: Yeah, particularly the two
defendants that remain in the
case.
They took a number of overt
acts.
They cased the governor's
cottage up in northern Michigan.
They built a mock up of her
house so they could practice,
sort of like the Navy seals did
with Osama bin laden in
Pakistan.
They tried to purchase
explosives.
They bought night vision
goggles.
They took a number of acts that
were in furtherance of the
conspiracy that may have caused
the jurors some pause in terms
of acquittal.
John: The prosecutors say they
intend to retry those two.
What did we learn about the
defendants in the course of this
trial?
Mark: We heard competing visions
of the defendants.
The defense portrayed the
defendants as beleaguered, wee
kend warriors that were angry
with the government and just
blowing off steam, that it it
was basically talk, that the
plot was not realistic, there
was no time, date, or location
for what they were going to do.
On the flipside, the government
showed that these guys really
did intend to do something.
Mark: You mentioned domestic
terrorism.
Governor Whitmer released a
statement saying she feared this
would embolden extremists.
We have these trials here in
Washington against the January 6
defendants.
The Biden administration justice
department say they want to
focus on domestic terrorism.
What is the significance of what
this jury did today in that
context?
Mark: I don't think you can draw
a bigger analogy to what
happened on January 6.
I don't know that this will
embolden other people.
These defendants, two of them
are still facing potential long
prison sentences and the other
two had to face a prosecution
that was quite vigorous.
John: A former federal
prosecutor in Washington, thank
you very much.
Mark: You're welcome.