Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning, when the defense is schedule to present its case to the jury.
Sholom Rubashkin’s defense team argued this afternoon that the judge should throw out all 83 misdemeanor child labor charges because the state did not prove the former plant executive wanted to hire or actually hired any minors.
“The case is underwhelming and ill-conceived and should be put to a stop right now,” said defense attorney Mark Weinhardt. “The evidence in this case is that Mr. Rubashkin did absolutely nothing.”
Attorneys Battle Over Motion to Dismiss Rubashkin Case
Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning, when the defense is schedule to present its case to the jury.
Sholom Rubashkin’s defense team argued this afternoon that the judge should throw out all 83 misdemeanor child labor charges because the state did not prove the former plant executive wanted to hire or actually hired any minors.
“The case is underwhelming and ill-conceived and should be put to a stop right now,” said defense attorney Mark Weinhardt. “The evidence in this case is that Mr. Rubashkin did absolutely nothing.”
Assistant Iowa Attorney General Elisabeth Reynoldson argued the state simply has to prove Rubashkin willfully concealed or permitted minors to work at the plant.
She cited three supervisors who testified it was easy to spot minors on the plant floor, and that Rubashkin regularly walked the area and could have made similar observations.
Black Hawk County District Associate Judge Nathan Callahan said he will review the evidence and rule at a later date.
The defense is scheduled to begin presenting its case Wednesday morning.
Weinhardt argued the state did not prove the ages of the minors by bringing in parents or a verifiable birth certificate.
He said the state also failed to prove the alleged minors worked around dangerous chemicals because dry ice and bleach don’t qualify as dangerous chemicals. Workers were not exposed to a third chemical, anhydrous ammonia, because it ran in enclosed pipes, he said.
The state argued one supervisor, Matthew Derrick, said he told Rubashkin of minors at the plant, though the conversation took place before the alleged child labor violations took place.
The state said a department of labor expert witness testified bleach and dry ice qualify as dangerous or poisonous chemicals.
The defense argued the judge should at least throw the charges related to five alleged child laborers because they did not testify in the case. The state alleges 31 minors worked at the plant.
Judge Callahan noted the defense presented a compelling argument when it said the state was charging Rubashkin on 83 specific counts, but attempting to convict him on a allowing a general scheme to employ minors. The defense argued the state needed to prove each individual count.
Callahan said its an issue that could be compelling on any future appeals, if Rubashkin is convicted. Defense attorneys often request the judge to throw out a case in a directed verdict of acquittal, as Rubashkin’s team did today, if it plans future appeals.
“I think that’s an interesting question,” he said.
It-s time for a miracle (in teva!)
Please G-d let’s hear besoros tovos that “A great miracle happened here” and let the case be thrown out.
justice for all
he has a case against THEM if anything.
Deceptive!
The pictures in all these articles make it seem like SMR is walking around a free man while awaiting their decisions. This is totally not true! He is imprisoned and treated like a most violent criminal!
izzy
Judge Callahan noted the defense presented a compelling argument when it said the state was charging Rubashkin on 83 specific counts, but attempting to convict him on a allowing a general scheme to employ minors. The defense argued the state needed to prove each individual count.
finally some sense around here!
meir rhodes
the claim that smr would notice a minor on the floor doesn’t hold water.the difference between say a 17 yr old and and/or 18 yr old especially of latino extraction, on the plant floor, is not likely to be noticed. minors can look much older than their age or much younger ,for that matter.
smr had too many other things on his mind. once the person was hired the age of the worker wasn’t his business.
To Meir Rhodes
I’m a little confused with what you wrote, especially the last line. Are you trying to say something positive or negative against SMR?