Gary McKinnon

Gary McKinnon is a Scottish computer hacker who was the subject of a decade of legal dispute between the United Kingdom and the United States. He came to the attention of law enforcement authorities when he hacked into 97 computers between February 2001 and March 2002. The computers hacked into by Gary McKinnon belonged to both the United States military and the space agency NASA. The stated purpose of his activities was to obtain evidence of alien technology which Gary McKinnon stated he was certain American authorities were concealing.

Gary McKinnon was questioned by British authorities twice, in March and August of 2002. As the result of an American investigation, a grand jury in Virginia indicted Gary McKinnon in October of 2002 on seven counts of crimes committed via computers. In 2005, the American government filed a request with the British government to extradite Gary McKinnon to the United States for trial. In 2006, a district judge recommended that the extradition request be granted. In general, the United Kingdom has often complied with American requests to extradite, only rejecting the request in 11 cases out of over 130.

John Reid, then the home secretary of the United Kingdom, signed the extradition order for Gary McKinnon in July of 2006. Gary McKinnon appealed this decision, losing an appeal in British high court in 2007 and in the House of Lords in 2008. In August of 2008, Gary McKinnon was examined by a team of psychiatrists who diagnosed him with Asperger's, a type of autistic mental disorder. This diagnosis was then used as the basis of a legal argument that Gary McKinnon should not be extradited to the United States. At this time, it was also reported that Gary McKinnon was threatening to commit suicide if extradited to the United States.

Following this diagnosis, both the European Court of Human Rights and Jacqui Smith, who succeeded John Reid as home secretary, both again declined to halt the extradition process. In 2009, Gary McKinnon successfully applied for a judicial review of his extradition. In February, legal action was taken to attempt to obtain a trial for Gary McKinnon in the United Kingdom rather than the United States but was unsuccessful. 2009 concluded with the extradition order still potentially in effect.

In October of 2012, Gary McKinnon finally was successful in having the extradition request permanently denied by the British government. The decision was made by another home secretary, Theresa May. In her announcement, made in the Parliamentary House of Commons, Theresa May cited a law passed in 2003, the Human Rights Act. Under article 3 of this law, which prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment, she argued that extraditing Gary McKinnon to the United States where he might commit suicide would be a violation of this part of the law. The United States government was unhappy with the decision, which it said was not in accord with the status of the two countries as allies.

Joe Arpaio

Joe Arpaio is a controversial Arizona sheriff known for his strong, often provocative views on the detention and legal treatment of Hispanic citizens. He was elected to the position of sheriff of Maricopa County in 1992 and has been re-elected every four years since. Joe Arpaio has been the subject of many investigations and lawsuits related to his practices.

One prominent investigation of Joe Arpaio was conducted by the FBI. This investigation was initiated in 2008 at the request of Phil Gordon, then serving as the mayor of Phoenix, who claimed he was one of many people who had been targeted for legal action at the behest of Joe Arpaio. After two years of investigation regarding potential abuses of power, the FBI expanded the scope of its investigation to determine if any state crimes had been committed.

One of the crimes allegedly committed by employees working for Joe Arpaio concerned misuse of credit cards which use public funds to pay for certain expenses. In its investigation, the FBI and Department of Justice determined that though the financial records being maintained were inadequate, there was no evidence of misuse of public funds as such.

Another of the crimes allegedly committed under Joe Arpaio concerned the misuse of $84 million allocated for jails. Investigating complaints filed by county supervisors, the FBI investigation determined that the money had been used to pay salaries and expenses unrelated to maintenance of the jail. However, there was no evidence to suggest that Joe Arpaio had derived a personal profit from this misuse of funds. Therefore, the FBI declined to press charges against Joe Arpaio, since it would be impossible to prove that this misuse occurred with criminal intentions. As a result of the failure to find criminal intent in any actions committed by Joe Arpaio or his employees, the FBI ended its investigation after four years in 2012. 

Another lawsuit against Joe Arpaio which has yet to receive a resolution stems from the 2007 arrest of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican citizen who was visiting the United States legally. Following his arrest, Melendres was unlawfully detained for nine hours before being released. Melendres filed suit against Joe Arpaio that year and was soon joined by a number of other Latino plaintiffs, who alleged that they had been stopped and detained by the Maricopa County police solely on the basis of their ethnicity. The lawsuit alleges that the unlawful detention is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the strategy of targeting Latinos is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case has yet to reach a verdict. Pending his decision, district court judge Murray Snow issued an injunction forbidding Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County sheriff's department from conducting any further arrests or detentions on a racial basis. In December of 2011, Murray Snow also issued an injunction forbidding arrest or detention based solely on suspicion of the arrestee being an illegal immigrant.

Zacarias Moussaoui

Zacarias Moussaoui is a convicted terrorist who was involved in the planning of the attacks of September 11, 2001. His role in the attacks dated to a period between the end of February of 2001 to the end of May. During this time, Zacarias Moussaoui took flight lesson training with the goal of participating in the attacks. However, a decision was made not to include him in the plot, of which he was aware.

In August of 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested for immigration violations and detained. Following the events of September 11, he was named by another member of Al Qaeda as another jihadist with knowledge of the plot. Subsequently, in December of 2001 Zacarias Moussaoui was indicted by a grand jury on six charges, all related to his knowledge of the conspiracy and failure to report it to American authorities.

From 2002 to 2005, a series of appeals and legal rulings delayed the start of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. During this time, Zacarias Moussaoui met with a psychiatrist who determined, after evaluation, that he was mentally competent to be tried as a criminal defendant. After being granted the right to represent himself, Zacarias Moussaoui requested that he be allowed to use confidential documents to prepare his case, as well as permission to call detained Al Qaeda members as witnesses. The presiding judge declined to allow him access to the documents, conferring with federal authorities' statement that to do so would create issues of national security, but granted him the right to call Al Qaeda witnesses. The federal government refused to permit these witnesses to testify, a decision which was reversed by a court of appeals.

Zacarias Moussaoui initially pled not guilty to the charges but eventually entered guilty pleas to all charges before the start of the trial. His trial began in 2006. During the course of the trial, FBI agents testified of their awareness of plans to use hijacked aircraft to destroy American buildings. Zacarias Moussaoui also testified, again claiming that he had been involved in a separate conspiracy.

In May of 2006, the jury found Zacarias Moussaoui guilty of the charges against him. During the subsequent sentencing proceedings, jurors were unable to agree on the death penalty due to one dissenting juror. Therefore, Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences. He was not made eligible for parole.

After the trial had come to an end, Zacarias Moussaoui waived his right to appeal the sentence. Subsequently, in May of 2006 he filed an appeal in federal court, in which he recanted his plea of guilty and disclaimed involvement in or advance knowledge of the events of September 11. Instead, he now claimed that he had been involved in a separate conspiracy to hijack a commercial aircraft to rescue a fellow jihadist being held in Afghanistan.

However, since he had already waived his right to appeal, his motion was dismissed. 

Cleveland, OH— For 42 year old criminal defense attorney Ian Friedman, the law bug bit him early.

“My mother would tell you I wanted to be a criminal defense lawyer when I was in the fifth grade,” Friedman told laws.com in a recent interview.  “I took a position against the death penalty during a class debate.  Truth be told, I always wanted to be a prosecutor.”  Friedman's love of prosecution was thwarted by a hiring freeze during his time in law school, but this turned out to be fortunate after all.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“I took a job in a criminal defense firm,” he explains.  “My research in my first case revealed the government's concealment of evidence.  From that point, I knew my place was as a criminal defense lawyer.”

Today, Friedman says that the greatest challenge to criminal defense attorneys is a lack of respect for the judicial process from people both inside and outside the legal system.  “Our nightly legal commentators treat our trials more like game shows.  Politicians seek advancement by criticizing and whittling away at citizens' constitutional rights,” he laments.

“Finally, the art and practice of real trial lawyering is in peril.  Judges choose expediency over meaningful voir dire, for one example,” Friedman continues.  “I am also disappointed by the lack of creativity I see in the courtroom today.  Too many young lawyers only know what they have seen on Law & Order, and that's a shame.”

While Friedman, like most criminal defense attorneys, started out being unable to do much picking and choosing of cases, the situation has changed now.  “Today, I have the privilege of overseeing a firm of lawyers that practice across the country and overseas,” he says.  “People don't come to us with the easy cases.  They are complex, unpopular, and carry horrid penalties.  I feel that the most difficult and unpopular cases need the best lawyering.”

Friedman believes that he has accomplished his mission to fight for those who most need defending.  “If I were to stop tomorrow, I would be satisfied that I made my mark,” he says.  “I have saved innocent people from lifetimes in prison.  I have taught students at the Cleveland Marshall College of Law how to be good lawyers for years, now.”

In 2005, Friedman was declared  President of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and one of his missions was to change the way evidence was provided to defendants in criminal cases. This led him to create the trial strategy called “Ohio Open-Discovery.” Friedman says that the creation of this trial strategy is one of his proudest accomplishments of his career because it eliminated a prosecution tactic of “trial by ambush.” The defendant would be kept in the dark about key evidence and witnesses against them until the moment the witness testified in court. He spearheaded the open discovery movement.

One of his proudest moments occurred on July 1, 2010, the “Ohio Open-Discovery” strategy led to him win a prestigious award from the primary regional bar association. Friedman recalls, “I was seated next to my father.  He said, 'you did good, kid.  What you did will save countless lives after you are long gone.'  I have been asked many times why I did it.  Why did I give so much money, time, and energy?  The answer is simply because it was right.  That is why I do what I do.”

Ian Friedman founded his firm, Friedman & Frey, L.L.C.,  on the belief in the constitutional protection afforded all individuals accused of a crime, and that every citizen deserves nothing less than zealous advocacy by a dedicated lawyer. As a result of years of hard work and dedication to representing their clients, the lawyers of Friedman & Frey, L.L.C., have amassed an extensive number of successful results. To learn more about his practice visit www.iannfriedman.com

Baltimore—Inspiration came early for Charles Curlett, whose legal career has gone on a path from prosecuting war criminals to opening Levin & Curlett, a Maryland and Washington  D.C. litigation boutique.

“When I was in the 8^th grade, I took a week long mini-course in school called 'Mock Murder Trial,'” Curlett recalled in a recent interview with laws.com.  “I was appointed the lead defense counsel.  I think that early taste for courtroom drama stuck with me.  I read every book I could find on criminal trials—from Inherit the Wind to To Kill a Mockingbird.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

For aspiring lawyers, Curlett has career advice.  “Choose your first job wisely.  It is perhaps easier said than done in this difficult job market, but it is important to pursue your passion.  Try to find a job that will allow you to do what you want to do, even if it pays less.”

Curlett's first job in the legal field involved working in the Hague, prosecuting a Bosnian Serb general, Radislav Krstic, for genocide in the former Yugoslavia.  “I worked alongside a former federal prosecutor, Peter McCloskey, who was my first true legal mentor,” he says.  He taught me a great deal about how to investigate and prepare a case.  I learned the importance of thorough preparation, a touchstone of successful lawyering.”

Now working as a defense attorney, Curlett believes that the biggest challenges facing defendants today are “adequate funding for indigent defendants and mandatory minimum sentences.”

In his litigation firm, Curlett is able to provide service to some clients who don't have the means to pay for a lawyer.  “Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently commented that indigent defendants don't have the right to a 'Cadillac' lawyer—meaning the best lawyer that money can buy,” he explained.  

“But, she noted, people accused of crimes do deserve at least a 'Ford Taurus' defense.  Because we believe in the constitutional right to an attorney, we devote a portion of our practice to defending people who would not otherwise be able to afford to hire us.  We give them better than a Taurus.”

At Levin & Curlett, better than a Taurus means representation by a firm with highly experienced attorneys, who specialize in defending businesses and individuals.  The firm's attorneys also work to represent whistleblowers in False Claims Act and Qui Tam litigation.

When it comes to working at his own firm, Curlett says he made the right decision.  “I think every lawyer harbors at least a latent desire to hang out the proverbial shingle at some point in his or her career,” he says.  “I have been practicing law for almost 15 years, and finally did so about a year and a half ago.  I am pleased to report that I could not be happier.”

Being your own boss means that you have to pick your team wisely, according to Curlett.  “My law partner—and finding the right one is critically important—is an experienced former federal prosecutor and military judge.  We work hard, enjoy an excellent reputation in our community, and have the freedom to define our practice by taking cases we enjoy and believe in.”

To learn more about Charles Curlett and his practice click here.

Los Angeles, CA—Criminal defense attorney Thomas Mesereau took years to find his calling in the law.  “When I graduated law school, I really didn't know what my long term future would be like,” he recalled in a recent interview with laws.com.  “So I tried various areas of the law.”

After stints at a large international law firm in Washington DC as a civil litigator, a prosecutor's office in Southern California, and at a large oil company subsidiary, Mesereau realized that he simply didn't like much of what he was doing in law.  He transitioned to a small firm and began doing pro bono and criminal defense work.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“It was the pro bono and criminal defense work that rang a bell with me,” he says.  “I began to focus more on criminal law and work on pro bono cases, volunteering my time in free legal clinics in South Central Los Angeles and various institutions.”

Aside from Mesereau defending clients in a number of high-profile white collar crime cases, Mesereau has also worked on death penalty cases in Alabama, but the ones he is remembered most for involve celebrities.  Mesereau's defense of Robert Blake in a three-week preliminary hearing garnered him accolades and publicity.  “Going into the preliminary hearing, 80 percent of Court TV viewers thought he was guilty,” he explains.  “Three weeks later, coming out of it, 80 percent of the viewer’s thought he was not guilty.”

Mesereau also defended pop legend Michael Jackson from allegations of child molestation.  “I acquitted pop legend Michael Jackson from ten felonies and of four lesser charges,” he says.  “This case had more media coverage than the O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson cases combined.  If you recall, on verdict day, Times Square stood still.  In every capital in the world, people stopped what they were doing to find out what the verdict would be—it was an enormous case.”

Dealing with the media can present its own unique challenges and opportunities.  “What you do with the media is very case specific,” Mesereau says.  “In the Robert Blake case, I wanted cameras in the courtroom, but in the Michael Jackson case, I did not want any cameras.  My job is to defend my client, not public relations.”

Media coverage can also influence juries—and not always for the better.  “I think at this point, because there is so much coverage of trials on television, many people walk into courtrooms to serve on the jury thinking they know all about the system,” he explains.  “They actually don't.  They've seen a much distorted image of the system through the entertainment media.  We, as criminal defense attorneys, have to demonstrate that we have integrity, that we are professional, that we are not just slimy and sleazy as we are often portrayed.”

Mesereau says that he takes one death penalty case pro bono in the state of Alabama every year, and intends to continue doing so for as long as he works as a lawyer.  “I do it because it's something I believe in, and something that has given me great lessons,” he says.  “We can't just take any case, so depending on the time a case is brought to our attention, we may or may not have the ability to provide a service to that client.  We are constantly juggling who we are going to represent, and why, and where.

He has received numerous honors and recognitions such as Barbara Walters naming him one of the year’s "Ten Most Fascinating People". He has also been named "Criminal Defense Lawyer of the Year" by the Criminal Courts Bar Association, but what many don’t know is that many African American churches have honored Thomas Mesereau for his contributions for helping the poor in many communities. His zealous work in an out of the courtroom is what sets him apart from many practicing trial attorneys. 

To learn more about his practice visit www.mesereauyu.com

Milwaukee, WI—For Alex Flynn, who has been named one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Wisconsin, a love of the law was inspired by a love of history.

“I have my undergraduate degree in history, and I have always been fascinated with societal attitudes and the attraction to totalitarian government,” Flynn told laws.com in a recent interview.  “It is against extreme ideologies and societal desires exploited by politicians that the individual stands.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

Flynn's passionate defense of people accused of crimes has earned many accolades and led to appearances as a legal analyst on TruTV.  He believes that defending people regardless of what they have been charged with is the principled thing to do: “There are a number of factors that go into the decision to take on a client, but the crime charged or the conduct involved is almost never a factor.  Nothing any individual can do is anywhere near as dangerous as the collective power of the government and state.”

Flynn's love of history is reflected even in where he chose to locate his practice.  At the offices for Alex Flynn & Associates, even the walls have stories.

The “spite house,” located at 1223 N. Prospect, was the result of a feud between 19^th century neighbors.  Jason Downer, a judge and newspaper editor, owned a Gothic Revival house just down the street from the house where Flynn's offices are today.  Downer's neighbor, Francis Hinton, built a house next door that blocked Downer's view of Lake Michigan and a nearby park.

Because no building codes existed that made it illegal for the Hintons to block Downer's view, Downer took matters into his own hands.  He bought the lot next to the Hintons' house, then built a spectacular Queen Anne residence with walls so close to his neighbors that they couldn't possibly see the lake.

Today, the spite house is home to a legal practice dedicated to defending people charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanors to homicides.  Some of these cases have involved defendants whose crimes or professions led to media attention.  “I have been involved in notable cases involving politicians, clergymen, and many others,” Flynn says.  “My advice would be to never speak at length to the media about the details of a case while it is pending.  Be prepared with a concise quip, like: 'We deny any wrongdoing, and will ultimately prevail in court.'”

According to Flynn, the biggest problem facing criminal defendants today is “public fear, and the politicization of criminal statutes.”  Flynn believes that many problems that are currently treated as criminal offenses—for example, drunk driving and drug use—“are fundamentally public health problems, yet we deal with these issues primarily through criminal legislation and public health concerns are an afterthought.”

Flynn says that young criminal defense attorneys or those thinking of entering the profession should “borrow the Nike slogan: 'Just Do It!’ Don’t be afraid of making mistakes.  Be yourself.  Respect the jury.  Never forget that you are doing a tremendous public service just by being there and making the prosecution satisfy its burden of proof.”

To learn more about Alex Flynn and Alex Flynn & Associates, click here.

New York, NY—Representing clients charged with violating criminal statutes and other First Amendment related laws is what Herald Price Fahringer and Erica Dubno do best.

“Many of our cases involve theaters, bookstores, publishers, and a whole variety of activities that come within the scope of the First Amendment’s protections,” Fahringer told laws.com in a recent joint interview with himself and Dubno. “My partner and I feel very fortunate to be able to practice in this area of criminal law, because it involves a great deal of personal satisfaction.”  They also have considerable experience handling all types of criminal and civil appeals.  

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

With a combined 68 years of experience in the law — him with 50, her with 18 — the duo has become known for being excellent litigators, with Fahringer defending clients like Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein.  “Ms. Dubno is extremely intelligent, especially in the areas of research and litigation,” Fahringer explains.  “She and I have an advantage over an individual attorney, because our personalities and skills mesh so well and we each know how to work together on a case to coordinate our efforts for the best possible defense.”

Cases today look different than when either Fahringer or Dubno graduated from law school.  “Today, we live in a 'Law and Order' culture, where everyone thinks that every case should be like an episode on a TV show,” Dubno says.  “This usually leads jurors to be confused and disappointed.”

Fahringer says that one of the biggest changes to the judicial system has come from the plea agreement.  “When I came out of law school, you took every case to trial — plea deals weren't as available.  Now, about 95 percent of all cases are disposed of by a plea. Undoubtedly, being able to work out a good plea agreement has become very important in our practice.”

Deciding whether to take a case to trial today involves complex decision-making.   Fahringer says that “if the defendant has a viable defense, we will take the case to trial,” He notes there are other problems that can come from taking a plea deal or going to trial. “Today, more than ever, we have to examine the collateral consequences of a conviction,” such as weighing the problem of the client having to register as a sex offender. 

Dubno says that some cases are better off at trial than others.  For example, “when you have a defendant who may be able to testify and take the stand, and if his story is very compelling.” Moreover, “if a defendant has an issue with his immigration status, the plea deal might mean deportation.”

New attorneys should do as much trial work as they possibly can, according to Fahringer.  “To become a good trial attorney, you have to get into the courtroom, just like a boxer has to get into the ring.  You can’t become a good boxer by reading books. At the end of the day, you need to get into the ring to learn how to fight.”

Fahringer, who boxed for Penn State University and the U.S. Army, is known as a First Amendment Champion. He has handled over 15 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, he has tried cases in over 27 states and has briefed and/or argued more than 300 appeals.

Both Fahringer and Dubno have been recognized for excellence in legal writing, as well as the practice of criminal law, and their contributions to the law. In 1995, Fahringer was honored with the Thurgood Marshall Award from the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for outstanding contribution to the criminal law.

Today, Fahringer & Dubno provide clients throughout the United States with first rate, high-quality representation. To learn more about their practice visit www.fahringerlaw.com    

Wilfred Von der Ahe

Wilfred Von der Ahe co-founded the Vons supermarket chain, often cited as the first super market. The first such location was opened in 1948. A decade later they had become the third largest supermarket chain in the Los Angeles area. In 1960 Vons acquired a competitor, Shopping Food Bag Stores.

This purchase made by the company of Wilfred Von der Ahe was challenged by the Federal Trade Commission, which alleged that this purchase was a violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act, an important piece of anti-trust legislation. The case eventually was heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled on the case in 1966.

In considering United States v. Von's Grocery Store, the Supreme Court had to rule upon whether the action taken by the company of Wilfred Von der Ahe had violated section 7. When Vons and Shopping Food Bag Stores were combined, the total market share was just less than eight percent. Five of the justices agreed that this combined market share was a violation of section 7 and posed antitrust problems, while two justices dissented, one wrote a separate concurring opinion, and one abstained.

In ruling against Wilfred Von der Ahe, the majority opinion wrote that Section 7 was explicitly intended to guard against companies gaining excessive control of a particular market share. The majority opinion went on to note that this was especially the case in markets which were continuously consolidating the number of competitors, creating an anti-competitive, monopolistic market. In his separate concurrence, justice Byron White noted that the consolidation of market shares in Southern California gave eight firms control over more than 40% of the market. Therefore, he continued, any merger involving one of these eight leading companies was subject challenge under Section 7.

In their dissenting opinion, two justices outlined several reasons why they felt the acquisition was not subject to legal challenge. Among other details, the company noted that half of the stores owned by Wilfred Von der Ahe and his company were not in a geographical position to compete with Shopping Food Bag Stores in other ways. The dissenting opinion went on to express a concern that restricting these type of mergers might itself create an anti-competitive market environment.

As a result of the majority opinion's ruling, Wilfred Von der Ahe's company was ordered to sell off all of the Shopping Bag Food Stores it had acquired. Following this verdict, the Supreme Court was subjected to criticism from businesses which claimed the precedent set made any merger vulnerable to this type of challenge. As a partial result of this criticism, in 1968 the Department of Justice issued its first set of Horizontal Merger Guidelines, which set specific thresholds, thereby codifying a system for evaluating the legality of a proposed merger. These guidelines also stipulated that mergers which resulted in a market share of less than eight percent were unlikely to be challenged. These guidelines were revised and issued in 1992, and again in 2010.

How was the Aryan Brotherhood formed?

According the FBI and NPR, the Aryan Brotherhood was formed in the San Quentin maximum-security prison in California in 1964.  Some rumors indicate the brotherhood start as early as the 1950s, but a group of Irish bikers officially formed the brotherhood to retaliate against members of the Black Guerrilla Family. 

History of the Aryan Brotherhood

Throughout its history, the brotherhood has been made up of incarcerated white supremacists who retaliated against Mexican and black prisoners.  Recently, the group has focused less on white supremacy and more on maintaining dominancy within the prison systems. 

The group experienced the most growth during the 1980s and operated at federal prisons in California and state prisons as well.  During the 1980s, two of the brotherhood’s most notorious members, Barry Mills and Tyler Bingham, begin to control the gangs in the prisons. 

The FBI warned prisons about the Aryan Brother in 1982 because the FBI suspected they were recruiting gang members from more prisons in other states.  Subsequently, four prison guards were stabbed by brotherhood members at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois on October 22, 1983.  Two of the guards died, and it was the first time in U.S. history that two guards were killed in a federal prison on the same day. 

Starting in the 1990s, authorities began to relocate members of the brotherhood to maximum security prisons around the country where the prisoners were made to stay in a single cell for most of the day.  Even with increased security measures, the brotherhood continued to murder prisoners and traffic drugs in the prison. 

The gang went on to commit a large amount of murders and crimes during the 1990s.  For example, a strangulation occurred at the Lompoc federal prison in California in 1992, and Barry Mills and T.D. Bingham ordered a “race war” at a prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania in 1997 that resulted in two black inmates dying.  In 1995, brotherhood member Robert Scully was released from prison and shot a police officer only six days later.  

In 1999, Barry Mills wrote letters to the majority of brotherhood members on parole, and he encouraged the members to try and extend the brotherhood outside of the prison system.    

Charges Against the Aryan Brotherhood Leaders

Charges were finally brought against leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood on August 28, 2002 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Jessner.  The members were charged with murders by stabling, poisoning, strangulation and other crimes like extortion, narcotics trafficking, and more.

On March 14, 2006, Barry Mills, T.D. Bingham, Edgar Hevle, and Christopher Overton Gibson were brought to trial.  The four suspected leaders of the brotherhood were accused for their roles in 15 murders that occurred over the last 25 years.  Additionally, racketeering charges were brought against 40 members of the brotherhood and prosecutors presented evidence of the brotherhood’s involvement in 32 murders that occurred both in and out of the prison system.  The men were sentenced to additional life sentences without the chance of parole.

Source: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5558210