Uhuru 3 files for judgment of acquittal in free speech case

Penny Hess and Chairman Omali Yeshitela

In a significant post-trial development in what has been described as the “anti-colonial free speech trial of the century,” Attorney Leonard Goodman has filed a motion seeking judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy conviction of the three members of the Uhuru Movement: Chairman Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess, and Jesse Nevel. 

This motion, filed on October 10, argues that the September verdict, which acquitted the defendants of acting as unregistered agents of the Russian government but found them guilty of “conspiracy” to act as unregistered agents, is inherently contradictory and lacks legal grounding. 

Goodman’s filing on behalf of the Uhuru 3 highlights several critical issues that challenge the validity of the conspiracy conviction and requests either an acquittal or a new trial on this charge.

One of the motion’s core arguments emphasizes that FBI case agents themselves admitted during the trial that there was no evidence of “direction or control” by the Russian government over Yeshitela, Hess, or Nevel. According to the motion, this element is essential to the conspiracy charge, and its absence should invalidate the conviction. 

Furthermore, prosecution witnesses acknowledged that the Uhuru 3 had no knowledge of the “registration” requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which mandates that individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments register with the U.S. Department of Justice. This admission, Goodman contends, makes it impossible for the defendants to have “knowingly and willfully conspired” to act as Russian agents, a necessary condition for the conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. 951.

The motion also argues that the jury’s verdict is inconsistent. Since the Uhuru 3 were acquitted of being unregistered agents, any alleged acts of “dissent” cannot be considered “overt acts” that support the conspiracy charge. Additionally, Goodman criticizes the prosecution for allegedly misleading the jury during closing arguments, suggesting that a conspiracy could be interpreted merely as a “partnership” rather than requiring intent and knowledge of illegal activity. This mischaracterization, according to the defense, confused jurors about the legal threshold necessary to establish conspiracy.

In another point of contention, the defense claims that Judge William Jung improperly dismissed the only African American juror due to tardiness on the trial’s fifth day and replaced them with a non-Black alternate, despite the defense’s request for an African American alternate juror to maintain racial diversity. Goodman’s motion argues that this decision impacted the trial’s fairness, as the presence of a Black juror would have provided greater community representation and insight into the legitimacy of the defendants’ longstanding social justice work.

The conspiracy conviction has stirred widespread criticism among free speech advocates and civil rights organizations who argue that the case targets Black activists and their allies for their anti-colonial views and dissenting political beliefs. Chairman Omali Yeshitela, a lifelong advocate for Black reparations and justice, has consistently maintained that his work has been conducted solely in the interest of Black liberation, not as an agent of any foreign power. 

“We work for Black people, not Russia,” Yeshitela stated after the verdict. The Uhuru Movement, through its African People’s Socialist Party (APSP), has operated on an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial platform for over 60 years, pushing for reparations, an end to police violence, and economic self-determination for African communities.

The prosecution’s case against the Uhuru 3 originated from their connections to a 2015 conference in Moscow, hosted by the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, where Yeshitela was invited to speak. While the government alleged that this conference and subsequent communications indicated a Russian influence over the Uhuru Movement, the defense argued that the Movement’s goals were developed independently, rooted in the historic fight against colonialism and economic exploitation. They stressed that the APSP’s advocacy predated any contact with Russian activists and has consistently focused on dismantling systemic oppression within the United States.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution called 14 witnesses, including several FBI agents and two academic “experts,” to establish a tenuous link between the Uhuru 3 and the Russian government. Despite these efforts, the defense’s lack of counter-witnesses underscored the argument that the government’s case was based on supposition rather than solid evidence. 

Observers noted that prosecution witnesses failed to provide definitive proof of Russian direction or payment to the Uhuru 3 for their activities, with some admitting a lack of specific knowledge about the defendants’ activities.

The Uhuru 3’s attorneys assert that the trial’s implications go beyond the courtroom, striking at the heart of First Amendment rights. They argue that prosecuting activists under the guise of foreign influence could create a chilling effect on dissent, particularly for Black and other minority groups who have historically resisted U.S. government policies and systemic injustices. Attorney Goodman has emphasized that the case reflects a dangerous conflation of political dissent with foreign espionage, which threatens the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful protest.

The motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial is a critical next step for the Uhuru 3 as they prepare for the sentencing scheduled for December 16, 2024. Should Judge Jung deny the motion, the defense has signaled its intent to appeal the conviction. As the court deliberates, the broader legal community and civil rights advocates await the outcome, concerned about the precedent this case may set for future activism-related prosecutions. The defense’s post-trial motion underscores the fragile balance between national security interests and the protection of free speech, a tension that has surfaced repeatedly in high-profile cases involving activists.

For the Uhuru Movement and its supporters, the fight is far from over. “Uhuru means freedom,” Yeshitela reminded a crowd outside the courthouse, reinforcing the Movement’s mission to secure self-determination and justice for African people. The Uhuru 3 and their defense team remain steadfast in challenging the charges, advocating for a legal victory that upholds the fundamental rights of all Americans. More information and updates on the case can be found at handsoffuhuru.org.

Recent News

Scroll to Top