Accused A.L.F. Memeber Says Judge Breached Plea Deal

http://www.deseretnews.com


A man who raided a South Jordan mink farm says a prosecutor's statements during an
aborted sentencing hearing amount to a breach of his plea agreement.

As a remedy, William James Viehl asked U.S. District Judge Dee Benson on Thursday to
remove himself from his case and reassign it to another judge for the purpose of
sentencing.

Viehl, 23, was expected to be sentenced Nov. 12 to six months in prison for damaging
and interfering with animal enterprises during a September raid on the McMullin mink
farm in South Jordan. Such a sentence is consistent with the low end of the federal
sentencing guidelines, which the U.S. Attorney's Office had agreed to recommend in
exchange for Viehl's guilty plea.

During the sentencing hearing, however, prosecutor John Huber told Benson that
although Viehl's actions were classified as a property crime by the sentencing
guidelines, the impact of his misconduct was much more sinister than simple
vandalism.

"The crime itself was designed to intimidate and inspire fear in the victims," Huber
said.

Investigators believe Viehl and Alex Hall, 21, released as many as 650 minks in the
raid and also vandalized a number of buildings on the property with phrases such as
"No More Mink, No More Murder" and "ALF: We Are Watching."

"As you fashion your sentence today," Huber told Benson, "the corollary is that your
sentencing decision will have a much broader impact than just on Mr. Viehl. ...
Everyone is listening to what you're doing."

Benson seemed to be swayed by the argument, saying that the case involved "too much
threat and terror."

"I can't be as lenient as six months. I'm inclined to go … to two years, maybe
more," the judge said. "This sentence has got to be a deterrent, a message sent to
other people."

Defense attorney Heather Harris, in a motion filed Thursday, seized on Huber's
statements as evidence of the breach of her client's plea agreement. She said the
prosecutor "violated the plea agreement at almost the very outset by complaining
about the (sentencing) guidelines."

"The government's presentation was not merely restating facts," Harris wrote, "but
was characterizing Mr. Viehl's conduct and the effects of it."

Harris added that Huber's repeated warnings that "people are watching" what kind of
sentence Viehl received also constituted a "continued breach of the agreement."

"The only conceivable purpose for the government's presentation was to indirectly
encourage the court to impose a sentence other than what the government agreed to
recommend," Harris wrote. "The effect of its presentation was the equivalent of
winking and nodding while uttering the phrase 'low-end recommendation.' "

A new sentencing hearing scheduled for Dec. 11 is likely to be rescheduled in light
of Harris' request for reassignment of the case. A hearing on her request has not
been scheduled.