Kevin Harris’ Fate May Hinge On Single Word Lawyers Argue Over Meaning Of ‘Country’ In 133-Year-Old Law On Previous Trials
Whether Kevin Harris must stand trial for murder a second time or will go free rests with a judge and his interpretation of an obscure Idaho law.
Boundary County Magistrate Quentin Harden listened to an hour of arguments about the wording of the 133-year-old law Tuesday. The judge said he will decide within two weeks if the murder case against Harris should be dismissed.
“We’ve been through this trial by fire already. It would be just to bring this prosecution to an end,” said Harris’ attorney, David Nevin.
The debate between Nevin and Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury is over whether Harris wrongly is being tried twice for the same crime. He was acquitted by a federal court of the same murder in 1993.
In August, Woodbury charged Harris with killing deputy U.S. marshal William Degan. Harris and his friend, white separatist Randy Weaver, were involved in a shootout with federal agents at Weaver’s cabin in 1992. Three people were killed in the 11-day standoff, including Degan; Weaver’s wife, Vicki; and his son, Sam.
Harris, who is free on $10,000 bail, wants the state charge against him dropped. Weaver appeared in court with Harris Tuesday, along with about 20 other supporters. Weaver said it is federal agents who should be in court, not Harris.
“He’s been wrongly accused of murder and I’m looking for justice in this case,” Weaver said. “I would like to see some federal agents arrested. I haven’t seen them on TV.”
Woodbury has charged FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi with involuntary manslaughter for shooting Weaver’s wife. Horiuchi has been notified of the charge, but it’s doubtful he will ever appear in a Boundary County courtroom, Woodbury said. Horiuchi lawyers said they will request the case be moved to federal court; any hearings will likely take place in Boise.
The battle in Harris’ case is over one word of an untested Idaho law. It says the state is barred from prosecuting anyone convicted or acquitted of a crime “in another state, territory or country.”
Nevin claims the word “country” refers to the United States and the federal government. The Supreme Court has ruled in Nevin’s favor in six other states that have a law similar to Idaho’s. The courts have argued that a charge brought by the federal government can also be tried at the state level.
At worst the law is ambiguous. If the judge is uncertain of its meaning, Nevin said he must rule by law in favor of the defendant and a “just result.”
“A just result would be to dismiss the case,” he told the judge.
Woodbury said the law is clear and has a plain, ordinary meaning. The term country, refers to a foreign country, not the United States. “(Nevin) has tried to create ambiguity where none exists, by stating (the law) could not mean what it says,” Woodbury argued. “We ask the court not to dismiss the case so the State of Idaho can have its day in court.”
, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Color photo