Four former members of the Symbionese Liberation Army pleaded guilty to second degree murder today in Sacramento. The four include Sara Jane Olson, William Harris, Emily Harris Montague and Michael Bortin.

The charges were brought against the former SLA members earlier this year alleging their participation in a 1975 bank robbery in which a woman was killed. All four were originally charged with first degree murder which carries a life sentence. Under the plea deal, Emily Harris, who police believe was the "shooter" will get eight years and the others will get six.

Sara Jane Olson, formerly known as Kathleen Soliah, is already serving a 14 year sentence which was imposed after her guilty plea to aiding and abetting the group's plotting to plant bombs under Los Angeles police cars.

Patty Hearst would have been the state's star witness had the case gone to trial. Sentencing is set for Feb. 14.

Winona Ryder, found guilty today of two of three counts in her shoplifting trial, will not being going to jail. How do we know? The District Attorney won't be asking for it.

"We never thought about jail time," said the deputy district attorney, Ann Rundle, who prosecuted the case. "We won't be asking for it. We simply want Ms. Ryder to take responsibility for her conduct."

"Since it was not a violent crime, Ms. Rundle said, a more likely and appropriate sentence would be some combination of probation, community service and restitution. "And that's what we're going to ask for," she said."

So why didn't they offer her a deferred judgment on the felonies to begin with? Or a misdemeanor? What were they trying to prove? That celebrities will be treated more harshly than others? They made their point, but we doubt Saks or the public appreciate it.

For more on our view of the charges and trial, go here and here.

The sniper suspects have been charged in Virginia .

We'll have some analysis of this at the end of the workday.

Winona Ryder has been found not guilty of burglary but guilty of grand theft and vandalism. Our view: Unequal justice is no justice at all.

We repeat our prior views set forth here:

We believe that the DA's are treating Winona differently and more harshly because of her celebrity. The resources the city is spending to prosecute her for a first shoplifting offense is unprecedented. We think anyone else would have been offered a deferred judgment or a misdemeanor plea. Why is the prosecution so intent on getting a felony from her? If we were a taxpayer in Beverly Hills, we'd be angry and demand an explanation.

and here:

It really makes us angry to think of the state of California prosecuting an actress for allegedly stealing $6,000 from a luxury store when Kenneth Lay and his ilk haven't been charged with anything and allegedly stole millions or billions from the American people.

Thanks to Edward Still of VoteLaw for tipping us off to today's Washington Post article saying that Alabama is gaining the edge to be first for the sniper trial.

"While some sources with knowledge of the legal strategies being discussed said there is a strong push for the first case to be tried in the D.C. area, others noted that Alabama was becoming an increasingly attractive choice."

"The law enforcement sources said the Justice Department wants to ensure that the first case provides a clear prosecution victory -- both in verdict and punishment. They said the capital punishment laws in Alabama coupled with strong evidence in the Sept. 21 shooting outside a Montgomery liquor store are pushing that case up the list."

Translation: Ashcroft may pick Alabama for 2 reasons: It allows 17 year olds to be executed. It doesn't require the prosecution prove which person was the shooter to convict or get the death penalty. Not to mention they are big users of the death penalty.

But, will Ashcroft give up control to Alabama prosecutors and would such a decision be unpopular with the victim's survivors who may want to be able to follow the proceedings at close range and have input with the prosecutors? And will there be enough publicity for Ashcroft with a local prosecution in Alabama?

I still think Ascroft will pick Virginia where the feds can have a lot of input. Or that he'll take it federally first, charging killings during a Hobbes Act of extortion and use of a firearm to commit the crime. I also think he will leave the Virginia victims out of any federal Indictment as he did in the Complaint so that Virginia would be free to try them if the feds didn't get what they wanted.

Ashcroft really ought to get off the death penalty insistence for Malvo, the 17 year old. It is not going to go down well with the public outside the affected areas and will hurt us internationally.

The Washington Post reports that senior officials are now saying the U.S. may let Virginia try the two sniper suspects first. A second option is letting Maryland go first. The reason is Ashcroft's "fervent" support for the death penalty.

In Virginia, both suspects are eligible for the death penalty. In Maryland and in federal courts, 17 year olds cannot be put to death.

We think deciding where to prosecute by the likelihood of the success of the death penalty is wrong and makes us look barbaric. The assignment should be made on the basis of which jurisdiction has the best evidence against the pair and was the most affected by the case. In addition, it's unseemly to be talking as if death is a foregone conclusion. Doesn't anyone remember that the two defendants have not yet had a trial or been found guilty? This is like a scene out of Alice in Wonderland: "No, No" said the Queen. "First the punishment, then the verdict."

We'll be discussing the options and likely scenarios on Fox News Monday around 2:30 p.m., ET

Update:

We noticed that a New York Times Editorial also makes an analogy to Alice in Wonderland but uses slightly different words. We looked up the original quote and found this:

"'Then the words don't fit you,' said the King looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

'It's a pun!' the King added in an angry tone, and everyone laughed. 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved'".

Instapundit takes issue with our statement that deciding the place of prosecution based on where the likelihood of getting a death sentence is greatest makes us look barbaric. We respect Professor Reynold's views a great deal, but we point out that one of these defendants is 17 years old. Only the United States, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo have reported executing juvenile offenders since 1990. Human Rights treaties do not allow for execution of juveniles. We believe the rest of the civilized world regards executing juveniles as barbaric and will view us as barbaric if we use the death penalty as the yardstick for where the juvenile should be prosecuted.

A few weeks ago, four Justices of the Supreme Court wrote in a dissenting opinion in Florida v. Foster that the practice of executing juveniles is "a relic of the past [that] is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.... We should put an end to this shameful practice." The justices also noted, "like the mentally retarded, adolescents lack the impulse control of adults, and are thus neither deterred by the threat of death nor fully morally culpable for their actions. Society recognizes the immaturity of adolescents by forbidding them to vote, marry, drink or serve on juries."

Now it seems like our Attorney General is determined to choose a jurisdiction to try a 17 year old based on where he is most likely to be sentenced to death. The decision to seek the death penalty should not be made on the basis of the heinousness of the crime alone. Consider also that the Attorney-General is not supposed to make a decision to seek the death penalty until the Justice Department has given the defendant's lawyers a meeting at which they can argue against it. The Justice Department must consider factors concerning the character and history of the accused in addition to that of the severity of the crime before making a decision to seek the death penalty. That process has not even begun. For the Attorney General to call for the death penalty before being presented with this information is just plain wrong, not to mention in violation of the Justice Department's own guidelines.

Also, thanks to Instapundit, we noticed that our original post incorrectly identified Alice In Wonderland as Alice and Wonderland and we have corrected it.

LA Police Chief William Bratton has launched the department's first internal probe since he assumed the top cop job.

The probe concerns possible mishandling of tips about faith healers after a man being treated for a rash went into convulsions and died.

Bratton said that he recently received information that "the department's narcotics division had received tips about suspicious injections as far back as May 2001, but failed to investigate. The tips continued over the past 18 months, he said."

"I'm concerned, very concerned, about how the tip was handled, and I have many questions," said Bratton, who was publicly sworn in Monday. "We are going to try to convince the public of our sincere interest in determining what went wrong so that those mistakes are not made again."

For more on the challenges facing the new police chief, read today's Washington Post article, LA's New Top Cop.

The federal judge hearing the case of accused sniperand juvenile John Lee Malovo closed the hearing to the media.

The judge ruled that "public interest in the Washington-area sniper cases does not outweigh the suspect's right to be shielded from scrutiny as a juvenile."

For more on the relationship between the two accused snipers, go here.

If you are a juror or a close friend or relative of a juror in the Winona Ryder jury trial, Do Not Read This. Guilt or innocence should be decided solely on evidence presented in the courtroom, not on recaps of the evidence or opinions posted on the Internet:

Yesterday was a good day for Winona Ryder's defense, particularly when Saks security guard Kenneth Evans denied that he had told anyone he was "going to nail" Winona and "get her one way or another."

Evans has been the chief prosecution witness, testifying for three days. He's been the one leading the jury through the videotape, frame by frame. During cross-examination by Ryder's lawyer Mark Geragos, he denied discussing the case with a co-worker shortly after Ryder's arrest last year.

Mark asked him if during a lunch meeting with a male colleague, "did you have a discussion in which you said 'I am going to nail her'?"

Mr Evans replied: "Absolutely not."

Mr Geragos: "Did you tell him you were going to get her one way or another?"

Mr Evans: "Absolutely not."

What that tells us is that Geragos has the colleague on his witness list and will use him during the defense case to attack the guard's credibility. Juries are usually instructed that if they find part of a witness' testimony to be false, they may choose to disregard all of that witness' testimony. Should any juror choose to disregard Evans' entire testimony, there might not be enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury nullification--a not guilty verdict because the jury believes the prosecution is being unfair to Ryder because of her celebrity, would not even be necessary. Someone like juror Peter Guber could simply say, the guard lied about something big -- his intention to get Ryder at any cost -- and I am going to strike from my consideration all of his testimony, including what he said during his walk-through of the video tape with the jury.

We think this trial is a no lose proposition for Ryder. We doubt the judge would jail her if convicted. The prosecution refused to offer her a misdemeanor before trial. So why not go to trial? There is no downside for her. Either she will be acquitted and have no felony on her record or she will be convicted and have a felony but not go to jail --the same as if she had accepted a plea bargain.

Earlier, it emerged that Mr Evans had a personal file on Ryder, including a Polaroid photo taken of her after she was apprehended in Saks and newspaper clippings relating to the case. He didn't turn this file over to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office as he was required to do. Why would a guard keep a private file on Ms. Ryder unless he was obsessed either with her or with "nailing her?"

It really makes us angry to think of the state of California prosecuting an actress for allegedly stealing $6,000 from a luxury store when Kenneth Lay and his ilk haven't been charged with anything and allegedly stole millions or billions from the American people.

Prosecutors are supposed to care about justice, not winning. They are usually elected. If a DA is running for office in your district Nov. 5, check them out before hand, make sure you know who you are voting for. If we lived in Beverly Hills, we'd be picketing the DA's office. Come to think of it, we're sorry we didn't pick up one of those "Free Winona" tee shirts when we were at the trial Monday.

Via Atrios, a 2001 Village Voice article: The Castration of Wayne DuMond by Ward Harkavy.

The article reports DuMond's lawyer, John Wesley Hall, as saying:

"Bill Clinton is the only person in Arkansas without any balls," recalled John Wesley Hall, DuMond's attorney during their futile appeals and no enemy of Clinton. "He would fence-straddle to the extreme, and that created false expectations in some people."

John Hall is an excellent criminal defense attorney in Arkansas and author of legal text books for West Publishing on Ethics and on Searches and Seizures. We hope to see him at the NACDL board meeting this weekend and will ask him about the case, and report back here if there's anything to share. John was the recipient of the organization's prestigious annual Robert C. Heeny award this year.

Thinking it Through and Daily Kos have also been covering the Hucklebee-Dumond story. We need to do some research before we comment on this one.

After leaving the swearing-in ceremony for LA Police Chief William Bratton, we headed up to Beverly Hills for a great lunch at Ivy and to catch some of the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial. We wanted to say hello to her lawyer, Mark Geragos, and see for ourselves how the trial was going. We sat in on the testimony of the police officer who related the entire story of how Winona was followed around the store and then arrested.

Winona looked beautiful and listened intently. The courtroom was filled, mainly with journalists. Mark is upbeat about his defense, that Winona was set up because of her celebrity, that the police have changed their stories several times, they treated her rudely and unfairly and no one saw her cut the tags or plastic theft-stoppers off the items she is alleged to stolen.

One spectator of note was Mark Klass, father of Polly Klass, who after her murder several years ago, became a leading child's rights advocate. We have debated him many times on tv, usually ending in a screaming match, and have never agreed with him on any topic. We were very polite when we saw him at the trial, however, and asked him why he was there. He told us he has been attending regularly to support Winona because she has been a big supporter of his child victim's advocacy foundation.

We believe that the DA's are treating Winona differently and more harshly because of her celebrity. The resources the city is spending to prosecute her for a first shoplifting offense is unprecedented. We think anyone else would have been offered a deferred judgment or a misdemeanor plea. Why is the prosecution so intent on getting a felony from her? If we were a taxpayer in Beverly Hills, we'd be angry and demand an explanation.

Cynthia Tucker writes in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution that the clamor to kill Malvo is dead wrong. We agree:

"The dead felled by the snipers' three-week rampage deserved a dignified pursuit of justice, but they will not get it. The prospect of headlines and political advantage have proved too seductive for Washington-area prosecutors, who are practically trampling one another for the right to execute the accused. Their conduct is one more stain on the already mottled image of American jurisprudence. "

"But this nation ought to be nobler and wiser than to execute a young man not much older than the 13-year-old victim. No matter how eagerly --- or equally --- Malvo participated in the crime spree, he should not be judged equally culpable if he has not reached legal age. "

Ms. Tucker goes on to outline the reasons for not executing Malvo - please, give it a read.