Court Agrees to Hear Unabomber’s Appeal

A federal appeals court agreed Friday to hear Theodore Kaczynski’s request to withdraw his guilty plea for the Unabomber killings, go to trial and face a possible death sentence.

Kaczynski, a Harvard-trained mathematician who became a forest recluse, pleaded guilty in 1998 to mail bombings that killed three people and injured 23. Kaczynski’s statements have connected the attacks to his campaign against technological tyranny.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Friday to consider whether Kaczynski’s guilty plea was voluntary; whether he was properly denied the right to represent himself; and whether a defendant in a death penalty trial has a right to prevent his court-appointed lawyer from presenting evidence of mental impairment as a defense.

The Justice Department had agreed to the guilty plea and life sentence after a psychiatric examination concluded that Kaczynski was a paranoid schizophrenic but competent to stand trial. The exam had been arranged by Kaczynski’s lawyers over his objections.

Kaczynski had wanted to present a defense based on his views about technology and the environment. But his attempts to represent himself or bring in a lawyer who would argue his chosen defense were rejected by U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell of Sacramento, who said the requests were made too late and would unduly delay the case.

Burrell later refused to let Kaczynski set his guilty plea aside and found that his arguments, filed from his prison cell in Colorado, were not serious enough to justify an appeal.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Steve Lapham declined to discuss the order or the government’s position in the case. Before the guilty plea, prosecutors argued that Kaczynski should be allowed to control his defense, even at the risk of his life.

Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who helped Kaczynski with his legal filing, said the appeals court order “took an enormous amount of courage.”

“It’s a question of power: Who has the legitimate power to make the most important, fundamental decisions about the defense? Is it the guy whose life is on the line or is it the guy’s well-intentioned, paternalistic lawyer?” Mello said.