About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Interview: Esther Pollard: New Court Date Will Not Free Pollard

Interview: Esther Pollard: New Court Date Will Not Free Pollard

Aaron Lerner Date: 13 August 2003

IMRA Interviewed Esther Pollard, wife of Jonathan Pollard, in English on 13
August 2003.

IMRA: Jonathan Pollard has a new court date, September 2, 2003. You must be
very excited about it.

ESTHER POLLARD: [silence].

IMRA: But tell me, Esther, it has to mean something that Jonathan will
finally get to testify. Jonathan will finally get to tell his own story.

ESTHER POLLARD: No, Aaron, Jonathan will not get to speak at all. He will
not testify, nor will anyone else.

IMRA: Isn't this the evidentiary hearing that Jonathan has waited so long
for?

ESTHER POLLARD: No. It is not an evidentiary hearing.

IMRA: So it's an appeal?

ESTHER POLLARD: No it is not an appeal either.

IMRA: Well then, what is it? A retrial?

ESTHER POLLARD: Unfortunately the September 2 court date is not the
evidentiary hearing we were hoping for; nor is it an appeal, and it is
certainly not a retrial. It is simply another round of oral arguments.

IMRA: What is the difference?

ESTHER POLLARD: At an evidentiary hearing, or an appeal or a retrial, the
merits of Jonathan's case would be heard and his release might be obtained.
Witnesses can be called; Jonathan could testify if his attorneys want him
to. But this upcoming round of oral arguments does not even look at the
merits of Jonathan's case.

IMRA: Then?

ESTHER POLLARD: In the simplest possible terms it is just more discussion.
The court will hear only from the lawyers, and briefly at that. And all
that the court will look at is whether or not his attorneys have the right
to continue to argue the cases they filed nearly 3 years ago.

IMRA: You mean the two cases they filed in 2000?

ESTHER POLLARD: Yes. The first case is a Motion for Resentencing. It asks
for an evidentiary hearing so that our attorneys can demonstrate that the
Draconian sentence Jonathan received was unjustly obtained as a result of
ineffective assistance of counsel and in violation of Jonathan's
constitutional rights.

The second case asks the court to order the Government to allow Jonathan's
security-cleared defense counsel access to the secret portions of Jonathan's
own court docket, so that they can effectively represent him, particularly
in regard to clemency proceedings.

IMRA: Those two cases were filed about 3 years ago. How were they decided?

ESTHER POLLARD: That's just it, Aaron, they never were decided.

IMRA: You mean to tell me that they are still sitting on the judge's desk
waiting for a decision, nearly three years later?

ESTHER POLLARD: Yes. Exactly. We had hoped that we might get a decision but
instead....

IMRA: How would that help?

ESTHER POLLARD: A decision - even a negative decision on those two cases -
would allow us to move forward either to a real hearing which would bring
Jonathan's release, or to Appeal. But as long as there is no decision on
those two cases we remain in a legal No Man's Land, stuck in neutral gear.

IMRA: Let me understand; in other words, no matter what goes on at this
hearing on September 2nd, it still does not give you a decision that will
allow Jonathan's case to go forward to appeal any time soon.

ESTHER POLLARD: That sounds about right.

IMRA: So is this just a stalling device? The court can appear to be
handling the cases, while in effect avoiding making any decision that would
allow Jonathan to move forward?

ESTHER POLLARD: Let me put it this way, Aaron: both sets of attorneys have
long since gone on record that the cases have been fully briefed and that
all that is needed is a decision by the court one way or another.

IMRA: And?

ESTHER POLLARD: And instead of getting a decision, what we got was a court
order for the attorneys to appear for yet another set of oral arguments.

IMRA: Is standard procedure?

ESTHER POLLARD: No. Usually oral arguments belong to an appeals phase, but
this is not an appeal.

IMRA: So why doesn't Jonathan appeal?

ESTHER POLLARD: Catch-22 He can't appeal until a decision on the cases is
made. And the court still has not made any decision. We would welcome any
decision on the cases that have been gathering dust for the last 3 years.

IMRA: Even a negative decision?

ESTHER POLLARD: Yes! Of course! Then we could go to Appeal!

IMRA: So again, this new hearing just gives the appearance of progress,
without actually moving Jonathan's case forward one iota. That a real
decision can be stalled again for - who knows - maybe even a few more years?

ESTHER POLLARD: True. Remember - and I know that this is hard for most
people to understand - but all that this is, is a date for oral arguments.
It is NOT an appeal, and it is not a trial. It is just more discussion about
the cases that have ALREADY been "fully briefed".

IMRA: So why are they bringing Jonathan all the way to Washington - at
considerable tax payer expense, not to mention the danger and trauma to
Jonathan considering his health?

ESTHER POLLARD: That is a good question, Aaron. I wish we knew.

IMRA: Is there any chance that this hearing could set Jonathan free?

ESTHER POLLARD: No. It is not a trial. Not even a hearing. Just more talk.

IMRA: Esther what is the best you and Jonathan can hope for out of all of
this?

ESTHER POLLARD: A miracle!

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager 03-6106666 subscriber 4811
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

Search For An Article
....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)