Olson Wants Guilty Plea Withdrawn

LOS ANGELES- Former Symbionese Liberation Army fugitive Sara Jane Olson has asked to withdraw a guilty plea and be tried on charges of attempting to blow up police cars in a conspiracy to murder officers in the 1970s.

The new twist in the long-running case came in a motion unsealed Wednesday that asked Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler to withdraw her plea, which was entered Oct. 31, immediately repudiated outside court, then reaffirmed in court Nov. 6.

"After deeper reflection, I realize I cannot plead guilty when I am not," Olson, 54, said in a written declaration signed Monday and filed under seal Tuesday. "I understand, given the uncertainty of any jury verdict in any trial, that I may be found guilty."

She said her plea to two charges in the original five-count indictment was cowardice and she had "found the courage to take what I know is the honest course." She asked to go to trial on all charges, including three that were being dropped.

Olson is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 7 under law as it existed in 1976. She would face 20 years to life in prison, with possibility of parole in 5 1/4 years. If tried and convicted on all counts she would face life with possibility of parole in seven years.

A hearing on the motion was scheduled for Nov. 28.

District attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said prosecutors believed there were insufficient grounds for withdrawing the plea.

"It's a good plea," Gibbons said. "She agreed to it three times - once in writing and twice in open court - after receiving extensive advice from a battery of lawyers and from Judge Fidler."

Los Angeles County records about 50,000 felony pleas a year "and it's not unusual to suffer a change of heart or, as some call it, 'buyer's remorse,'" Gibbons said.

The attempted bombings in 1975 followed a fiery shootout in 1974 that left six members of the radical SLA dead. Pipe bombs were placed under officers' cars outside a police station and a Hollywood restaurant. Neither detonated.

Olson, then-named Kathleen Soliah, was indicted in 1976 on charges of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of possessing destructive devices and two counts of attempting to explode destructive devices with intent to murder.

Olson, who remained a fugitive until her 1999 arrest in Minnesota, pleaded guilty in October to the latter two counts. But immediately after leaving Fidler's court she told reporters outside that she was innocent.

On Nov. 6, Fidler called Olson and her attorneys back to court, lectured her about the meaning of entering a plea in court, and asked if she would reaffirm the plea.

Olson then said: "I want to make it clear, your honor, I did not make that bomb. I did not possess that bomb. I did not plant that bomb. But under the concept of aiding and abetting I do plead guilty."

The judge asked if she was doing so because she was "in fact guilty."

"Yes," she replied.

Olson's new motion argues the court has the power to prevent abuse of its process and that acceptance of a guilty plea when a defendant suggests she is innocent is counter to basic conceptions of justice.

Many individuals accused of a felonuous crime, are placed in a position of fear, not only by the prosecutor but also by their own attorney. It is quick justice and not justice as intended by our Forefathers. It is justice clouded by the ideology that the judge has to move quick to clear the court calendar. I believe that when a defendant want to withdraw his or her plea before sentencing, he or she be allowed to do so, whatever the rationale is for that particular defendant.

Justice is not "just - is". No, justice is the composition of the due process that is imbedded in the forging of our liberty interest, hence, we must afford the defendant the fullest extent of the law and give meaning to our Constitution.

It's very difficult to know whose word to trust in this case? Olson has been saying for two years that she is innocent. In court, she pleads guilty because she feels she won't get a fair jury trial. I can understand her fear and her desire to serve less time in prison, but how are those of us who supported her supposed to feel? Does she think that this flip-flop will make her any more endearing to a jury? The best course of action, if in fact she is innocent, would have been to go to trial and put forth the best possible defense. If she were wrongly convicted and sentenced, she would have more support than if she is convicted now. Again, that's assuming she's innocent. I don't think we can assume that anymore.

It's much too easy to stand in judgment of what someone else should do. If you were faced with a possible life sentence, going to trial in this sort of atmosphere, what would YOU do? More importantly, how could you possibly know the answer?

Yes, she was pepared to go to trial for two years--a period that must have seemed an enternity. Then, as her trial date was finially drawing near, the whole world was turned upside down. For her, it was not simply a matter of her own courage. There was also her family to think about.

Personally, I, too, was disappointed by her decision to plead guilty. But I could never condemn her for it--or let it influence my attitude toward her and her case. I've simply seen and read too much, I know too much about the difficult choices she faced, and the terrible injustices that happen in our system all the time. A year or so ago I revieweed "Last Man Standing," the story of Geronimo Pratt and his long fight to overturn his unjust convicition. That went down right here in LA, with the same rotten system in place that kept Pratt locked up for a quarter century, despite the fact that the FBI knew he was innocent all along.

So go ahead, doubt Sarah Jane Olson if it makes you feel good, makes you feel morally superior, certain that you would do the *right* thing if you were in her shoes. You have just done the system's work for it. You've let it get into your head--properly disguised, of course--and let it do it's little divide-and-conquer number on you. Or you can dig a little deeper into your heart, into your imagination, and try--though none of us can really succeded--to put yourself in her shoes, and imagine what it must feel like to her.

The secret here is simple: regardless of anything else, which path of action you take determines the sort of world that you are working to make. That choice is up to you. It is entirely independent of what anyone else choses to do--including the system, including Sarah Jane Olson.

As most of you know I am (politically and socially) on the ‘extreme right,’ while Sara Jane Olson is on the ‘extreme left.’ Although I still must remain objective.

Whether if Sara is truly innocent or guilty, I am praying that GRACE will be extended to her. Even if convicted, I pray she will not be sentenced even one day in jail.

Many criminals do not have a long term change of character and/or conduct, but Sara Jane Olson has. She is living proof, that ‘some’ can be rehabilitated without prison walls. Her life has changed and moved on; a husband, several beautiful daughters and a white picket fenced home.

As an LAPD officer, I viewed the 1974 ‘SLA shoot-out’ video numerous times. I have spoken to officers that were involved in that shooting.

Therefore I support Sara Jane Olson, and ask for her freedom. Though I do not support terrorism, however Sara has changed.

Respectfully submitted,

Chaplain Bill Rhetts

Former LAPD Officer

info@ipocministries.org

PO Box 8668 Redlands, CA 92375

cc: LA TIMES