
‘Chilling' effect on protesters as Cop City prosecution drags into second year
Rico cases are usually brought against organized crime, and are associated with the mafia, but in Georgia a sprawling prosecution has been brought against dozens of people opposed to a police training center near Atlanta known as Cop City.
The controversial training center – which officially opened its doors last months in an invitation-only ceremony – attracted global headlines after police shot dead Manuel Paez Terán, or 'Tortuguita', an environmental activist protesting against the project, in January 2023.
Opposition to the training center, built on a 171-acre footprint in a forest south-east of Atlanta, has included local and national organizations and protesters, centered on concerns such as unchecked police militarization and clearing forests in an era of climate crisis.
Atlanta police officials say the center is needed for 'world-class' training, and to attract new officers.
Last week, defense attorneys in the halls of Fulton county superior court were still unclear on or unhappy with the results of the most recent hearing in the case.
'So when is it that the trial would begin?' one veteran defense attorney asked another – after the day's proceedings were supposed to have answered at least that question.
Another highlighted how the state had introduced more alleged evidence against the 61 defendants tied to a movement to stop Cop City the same morning – despite the court already having given prosecutors two deadlines for discovery material, the last one a year ago.
The state's indictment alleges that actions ranging from throwing molotov cocktails to paying for camping supplies for protestors who occupied woods near the proposed site of the training center were 'in furtherance of the conspiracy'.
There were already more than five terabytes of evidence that one defense attorney described as 'unorganized, not date-stamped, with some files corrupted' during the hearing.
Chaos has accompanied the case since Georgia attorney general Chris Carr's August 2023 indictment of 61 people used Rico to prosecute the case, several defense attorneys said.
As the case drags on, 'it's not just your case and your freedom, but what you do in your everyday life that is on hold,' said attorney Xavier T de Janon.
De Janon mentioned his client, Jamie Marsicano, as an example: they have graduated law school and passed the North Carolina bar – but won't be admitted until the charges are resolved.
Also, the case's high profile means 'a precedence could be set, a potential chilling effect: when people are protesting against the government, they see other people prosecuted for Rico,' said defense attorney Brad Thomson, with the People's Law Office.
This is particularly important right now, Thomson added: 'We're seeing with the Trump administration that people are even being deported for protesting.'
Judge Kevin Farmer, newly assigned to the case after the previous judge left for another court, reminded a full courtroom at least four times that Georgia's attempt to charge the protesters with criminal conspiracy was already nearly two years old.
Defense attorneys reminded the court that numerous irregularities had already occurred.
'Y'all brought this case, at the time you brought it – that was your choice,' Farmer told Georgia's deputy attorney general, John Fowler, at one point, referring to several missed deadlines set by the court.
At Wednesday's proceedings, Atlanta's police presence included officers standing across the street taking photos of protesters urging the state to drop the charges, posting up on the corner and parking along the street in front of the courthouse.
An overflow courtroom had to be arranged for supporters and media trying to follow along.
Farmer, in his first hearing as the new judge on the case, acknowledged its scale. 'I have a 61-person elephant. Normally you try to eat the elephant one bite at a time. I'm gonna try to eat the elephant four or five bites at a time,' he said.
The plan: hold trials of small groups of defendants, each one lasting around a month, and then fewer over time, according to Fowler.
Farmer said trials could begin as early as June – but then the day's proceedings included the state's intention to release more evidence, recovered from undercover agents, according to Fowler. De Janon said evidence already included 37 days of bodycam and surveillance video and 29 days of audio files.
Farmer also said he wanted defense attorneys to file individual motions on behalf of their clients by 30 May, rather than sign on to each other's, as many have done until now. This means the number of motions – on issues such as alleged first amendment violations or misuse of Georgia's Rico statute – could balloon from more than 250 to three or four times that amount, De Janon said.
Another wrinkle in the proceeding: the case's former judge, Kimberly M Esmond Adams, issued an order at 10.50pm the night before, denying motions to dismiss filed from one group of defendants – including members of the Atlanta Solidarity Fund (ASF), or ASF, a bail fund whose members are mentioned more than 100 times in the original indictment's 109 pages.
Their attorney, Don Samuel, told the court he did not understand why Adams would respond to motions received in September on the night before the hearing, and that the order did not address issues raised in his motions. The ASF defendants may be in the first group to face trial as early as next month, according to the court.
An attorney with more than a decade's experience in Atlanta who observed the proceeding said he had 'never seen a judge who was no longer on a case blindside an attorney or group of attorneys with an order sent at the last minute the night before a hearing'.
Outside the courthouse afterward, ASF member and defendant Marlon Kautz pointed to the case's continuing impact: 'As long as 61 people are facing decades in prison … simply for being associated with a political movement, protest everywhere is chilled and intimidated.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on "creating distracting headlines and settling old scores." "But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem," she said in a statement. ___


Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
White House seeks fines from other universities after Columbia deal
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Reuters) - The White House is seeking fines from several universities it says failed to stop antisemitism on campus, including Harvard University, in exchange for restoring federal funding, a Trump administration official said on Friday. The administration is in talks with several universities, including Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown, the source said, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is close to striking deals with Northwestern and Brown and potentially Cornell. A deal with Harvard, the country's oldest and richest university, is a key target for the White House, the official added. The universities did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump and his team have undertaken a broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at U.S. universities, which the Republican president says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies. Trump has targeted several universities since returning to office in January over the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled college campuses last year. Columbia University said on Wednesday it will pay more than $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. The Trump administration has welcomed the Columbia deal, with officials believing the university set the standard on how to reach an agreement, the official said. Harvard has taken a different approach, suing the federal government in a bid to get suspended federal grants restored.


Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
Social media companies not liable for 2022 mass shooting, New York appeals court rules
July 25 (Reuters) - Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram, Google's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The plaintiffs included relatives or representatives of people who died in Peyton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed it.