Federal jury in Michigan clears 2 defendants for plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  As we reported, a jury in Michigan found two men accused of plotting to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer not guilty today and failed to reach a verdict against two others.

  John Yang has our report.

• John Yang:

  Geoff, this was a case that made headlines just a month before the 2020 elections and amid protests over government handling of the pandemic. Federal prosecutors alleged a plot to kidnap a sitting governor from her vacation home, in hopes of disrupting the presidential race and maybe even sparking a civil war.

  To help us understand today's acquittals and mistrials, we're joined by Mark Chutkow, a former federal prosecutor in Michigan.

  Mr. Chutkow, thanks for joining us.

  It sure seemed like the prosecutors had a lot of evidence here. They had accused conspirators who turned state's evidence. They had undercover FBI agents. They had secret recordings. Now, obviously, we don't know what happened in the jury room. But what do you think happened here?

• Mark Chutkow, Former Federal Prosecutor:

  Yes, as you say, it's a bit — speculation to figure out exactly what has happened in the jury room, because they haven't talked.

  But I think that there was some underlying tensions in this case. One is, where you draw the line between protected free speech and a criminal conspiracy was something that the government had to grapple in this case, especially with the polarizing issues that you had raised about the pandemic and the shutdown.

  Second, the question is, how far can the government go to be involved in a conspiracy plot? Here, the defense vigorously raised issues of entrapment, both by the government informant that turned to the state and also undercover agents and cooperating defendants.

  Third, I think is — on the flip side is, how far can the government take this before they pull the plug? I have worked with FBI agents before, and there is a constant tension of, do we let the plot go on longer so that we can build a better case, or do we pull the plug because we don't want anyone to be harmed?

  The concern here is, if the informant loses access to the conspirators, then the government loses control, and no one knows what's going to happen next.

• John Yang:

  Among the things that the prosecution had, they had accused conspirators pleading guilty and testifying against the other defendants.

  What — does that usually carry some weight with juries?

• Mark Chutkow:

  That usually carries a lot of weight.

  In this case, the defense was arguing that the government entrapped them. And so by the government being able to bring forward two people that were involved in the conspiracy, who said, no, the government did not push me to do this, I was willing to do this, I accept responsibility for the fact that I did, in fact, conspire to kidnap the governor, and the people on trial were participating with me, that ordinarily is very compelling evidence that oftentimes reassures a juror that there really is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

• John Yang:

  The defense argued that these guys were just talking, this was free speech, talking about how much they hated the government and that sort of thing.

  But they're — they actually took some actions as well, didn't they?

• Mark Chutkow:

  Yes, particularly the two defendants that remain in the case. They took a number of overt acts. They cased the government — the governor's cottage up in Northern Michigan. They built a mockup of her House so that they could practice, sort of like the Navy SEALs did with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

  They tried to purchase explosives. They bought night-vision goggles, and they took a number of acts that were in furtherance of the conspiracy that may have caused the jurors some pause in terms of acquittal of those two top defendants.

• John Yang:

  And the prosecutors have said they do intend to retry those two.

  What did we learn about the defendants in the course of this trial?

• Mark Chutkow:

  Well, we heard competing visions of the defendants.

  From the defense, they portrayed the defendants as beleaguered weekend warriors that were angry with the government and that were just blowing off steam, that, basically, it was talk, they never intended to go through with this, that the plot wasn't realistic, there was no time, date or location for what they were going to do.

  On the flip side, the government showed that these guys really did intend to do something.

• John Yang:

  You mentioned domestic terrorism, domestic extremism.

  Governor Whitmer released a statement after the verdict saying she feared this would embolden extremists. And we have these trials here in Washington against the January 6 defendants. The Biden administration, Justice Department says that they want to focus on domestic terrorism.

  What's the significance of what this jury did today in that context?

• Mark Chutkow:

  I don't think you can draw a bigger analogy to what happened on January 6.

  And I don't know that this is going to embolden other people. These defendants, two of them are still facing potential long prison sentences, and the other two had to face a prosecution that was quite vigorous.

• John Yang:

  Mark Chutkow, former federal prosecutor in Michigan, thank you very much.

• Mark Chutkow:

  You're welcome.