|Amish convict appeals US hate crimes verdict
The leader of 16 Amish men and women in the US found guilty of hate crimes for cutting the hair and beards of fellow members of their faith is arguing in a new court filing that federal prosecutors are undermining his character in the face of weak evidence.
Samuel Mullet Jr.'s attorneys argue in the Monday filing that the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, should reject a request from prosecutors to uphold his conviction and 15-year prison sentence, AP reports.
Mullet's appellate attorneys criticized the government's 64-page request as hyperbole and are asking the 6th Circuit to throw out Mullet's conviction and sentence.
The court could rule at any time. Mullet, 68, is serving his sentence in federal prison in Texarkana, Texas.
Attorney Wendi Overmyer wrote in Monday's filing that the government overstepped its bounds in prosecuting Mullet and that the hair- and beard-cuttings did not amount to hate crimes, but were family disputes that resulted in no serious physical injury.
The convictions stem from five attacks in Ohio Amish communities over the course of three months in 2011 in what prosecutors describe as apparent retaliation against members who had defied or denounced Mullet's authoritarian style in the insular community, which shuns many facets of modern life and is deeply religious.
Prosecutors argue that the hair- and beard-cutting amounted to ritualistic violence based on religion and were designed to shame fellow Amish accused of straying from strict religious interpretations.
“The victims were devastated and physically injured, and the assaults injected terror and anxiety into a community that awaited the next nighttime assault,'' prosecutors wrote in a February 28 filing with the 6th Circuit.
Mullet's attorneys also criticized a federal judge's decision to allow testimony at trial that Mullet directed his daughter-in-law to have sex with him for religious reasons. They say the 2008 sexual conduct was unrelated to the 2011 hair-cutting incidents and had a highly prejudicial effect on jurors.
Prosecutors argue that the judge properly allowed the testimony, saying it showed jurors the high level of the control that Mullet exerted over his community's members.