Lonefighter wins appeal

Page 1

Milton Born With A Tooth was short-changed at his original trial when the judge refused to allow defence arguments that might have cleared the militant activist, an appeal court ruled.

In a 17-page written decision, the Alberta Appeal Court quashed seven weapon-related convictions and ordered a new trial for the Lonefighter leader.

"I've just had three judges tell me that they were the ones who were wrong," said

a buoyant Born With A Tooth in an interview from the Lonefighter Society's Calgary headquarters.

"We are the first case that has gone to the highest provincial court and we kicked ass...This has exonerated the position of the Lonefighters and proved that we weren't a bunch of hoodlums."

He has been ordered to appear before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in

Fort McLeod to set dates for a new hearing.

The provincial government has not said whether it will proceed with a second prosecution. A spokesman for the attorney general's office would not comment, saying that the case is "technically before the courts."

The charges against him stem from a 1990 police standoff at a weir where Lonefighters were attempting to divert the Oldman River away from a $350-million dam. RCMP officers were escorting provincial environment officials to the diversion weir when they were confronted by about 10 Lonefighters. Born With A Tooth fired two shots into the air.

Convicted on seven charges ranging from pointing a firearm to obstructing police officers, he was sentenced to 18 months in jail. He's been free on bail pending the appeal court decision.

The appeal court sided with long-standing complaints that the trial judge mistakenly barred defence arguments that Born With A Tooth was legally defending Peigan territory. The court also said Justice L.D. MacLean "curtailed" cross-examination designed to raise doubt with the jury about police intentions.

But the three-judge appeal panel also faulted defence lawyer Karen Gainer for creating an air of animosity by not answering his questions about why her arguments should be allowed.

"The failure of the defence counsel to articulate compelling answers to (the judge's) questions largely account for almost all grounds of appeal. Counsel was at once argumentative and vague. She asserted positions but said almost nothing to explain them. This led to repeated clashes during the remainder of the trial. By the end of the trial, the trial judge was limiting himself to occasional protesting interjections."