Judge rejects deal for teen in cross-burning case

One of four teenage boys accused of burning a cross in front of the Elk-area home of two black classmates last April tried unsuccessfully Tuesday to cut a deal that would spare him a criminal record.

The 17-year-old boy asked Spokane County Juvenile Court Judge Neil Rielly to grant him a “deferred disposition” in which three charges of malicious harassment would be dismissed if he satisfied court-ordered requirements.

The former Riverside High School student rejected a deal three co-defendants accepted last month, in which three counts of malicious harassment – one for each victim – were folded into a single count. The deal cut their potential 90-day sentences down to 30.

In addition to a month of detention, the three boys who took the deal – two 17-year-olds and a 15-year-old – were sentenced to 150 hours of community service. They also were required to do 24 hours of research and write an essay on racial violence.

One of those boys had tried unsuccessfully to get Juvenile Judge Ellen Kalama Clark to grant him a deferred disposition.

The one who appeared in court Tuesday filed an affidavit of prejudice against Clark to get a different judge.

Defense attorney Michael Elston said his client, the holdout, might be denied federal financial aid for college with a felony on his record.

Deputy Prosecutor Dan Catt disputed that claim and argued that the public interest in combating racial harassment ruled out leniency.

“It is hard to move forward in a positive direction when these horrors from the past keep coming back,” said the Rev. Jerry Jones, president of Spokane’s Interdenominational Ministers Fellowship Union.

Dave Anderson, a Native American, said he and his two 15-year-old black sons – twins adopted as infants – were “devastated” by the cross-burning. He said he had taught his sons, Adam and Aaron, that they were no different from anyone else.

“Now that’s totally shattered,” Anderson said, adding that his sons are afraid to leave home alone.

The defendant and his parents apologized in court Tuesday.

“He wasn’t raised that way,” the boy’s father said. “I’m terribly sorry.”

But the boy’s stepmother and attorney contended the cross-burning was a misguided prank without racial motivation.

“I just hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive him,” the stepmother said.

On his own, the defendant wrote a letter of apology and a report on the book, “Black Like Me.”

“An apology doesn’t fix everything, but it is pretty much all I can do right now,” the boy said. “… I know I messed up.”

Juvenile Probation Officer Cathi Byus rejected arguments that the incident was “an act of boredom” that lacked malice. She joined Catt in urging Rielly to reject the final defendant’s request.

“This isn’t any kind of a prank at all,” Rielly said in his ruling.

Granting the boy’s request was “not at all” in the community interest because it would encourage racism, the judge said.

The teen now faces a Juvenile Court trial in August.