WATERLOO --- Considering the evidence in the state's child labor case against Sholom Rubashkin was no small task, according to the Waterloo City Council member who served as the jury's foreman.
"It's kind of tough to call because you want to make the right decision. But what we had to go on was the testimony, the materials given within the court case," said Quentin Hart said.
Rubashkin was charged with 67 counts of child labor violations in connection with underage workers at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant.
Monday afternoon jurors acquitted him of all counts.
Jurors deliberated Friday and returned Monday morning. After ordering in lunch and taking a short break, they announced they had reached a decision at about 12:50 p.m.
In explaining the verdict, Hart noted that all 26 former underage workers who testified said they had submitted false paperwork that made it appear they were over age 18 when they applied. He also noted that company officials had fired underage workers it found in 2007.
"There never was any clear line of communication between Sholom about him knowing that the 26 on there were underage. That was a little challenging," Hart said.
He said the case showed a need to focus on immigration.
"We as a community, a state, a country need to take a look into those situations, because you have young people, older people in there seeking a better opportunity and having to hide who they are to maintain some type of citizenship," Hart said.
Deputy Attorney General Thomas H. Miller said it was a complicated case, but prosecuting it sent the message that child labor violations won't be tolerated.
"We're disappointed of course. We felt this was a fight that needed to be fought," Miller said.
Defense attorney F. Montgomery Brown called the jury "courageous" and said the verdict was an unprecedented upset writes "a wonderful new story for Sholom and his family. ... And that story is his being vindicated as a human being that did not want minors working in his father's plant."
EARLIER STORY:
WATERLOO --- Former Agriprocessors executive Sholom Rubashkin has been acquitted of allowing minors to work at the Postville slaughterhouse.
The jury indicated they had reached a verdict shortly before 1 p.m. Monday.
Jurors acquitted him of all 67 counts of child labor violations.
Rubashkin is awaiting sentencing on federal bank fraud charges in connection with loans Agriprocessors received. Federal immigration charges stemming from the May 2008 raid at the plant were dropped earlier.
State labor officials began investigating information that minors worked at the plant in the months before the May 2008 immigration raid.
Prosecutors said Rubashkin, who was described at the CEO and co-vice president of the company, knew underage workers held jobs at the facility and did nothing to remove them or change hiring practices.
Twenty-six former Agriprocessors employees from Guatemala and Mexico testified they had worked at the plant as teenagers. The state said they worked with dangerous chemicals and some tended power-driven equipment like conveyor belts.
Please Wait…
"Rubashkin Acquittal: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors"
www.yated.com/content.asp?categoryid=7&contentid=129
Although I am not suggesting here, I'm sure there are those who might be suspecting that money is changing hands. I guess on June 22nd we'll find out if that's happening when Rubashkin is released on his own recognizance and the people who testified against him are put in jail and deported.
Apparently, in Iowa, if you have enough politicians, judges, lawyers, prosecutors and juries in your pocket, you can get away with just about anything. The only question is, how long will it be before he's running the plant again? And yes, the entire episode has been an episode in ethnic cleansing, and a stain on on the integrity of Iowa and the people of Iowa, one that will never go away.
To be honest, I expected more from you folks. Guess you're just as sorry as the rest of us. I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain: "In order to be a racist," he said, "you have to think that one group of people is better than another group. My opinion of the entire human race is so low...." That pretty much sums up this whole affair, from top to bottom, from Agriprocessors to Postville, to Waterloo to Washington, D.C.
Did you read the story? All the underage subjects in this case had submitted false information about their ages when they were hired. In other words.... THEY LIED.
^o^
We have an over-zealous government and this case should never have even been tried it was so weak.
I gaurantee you that he is going to be able to appeal the federal case and win.
I am happy to see Rubashkin acquitted of the State charges.
Looking at this entire sad saga, I make no excuses for him. It is clear that he broke the law, and he has been convicted.
On the other hand, it is also clear that too many folks in
Iowa - including members of law enforcement and the local media - are enjoying this too much. I wonder why; is it because of the crimes alleged, are because of who the alleged is?
Yes, Sholom Rubashkin is a convicted felon, and in all probability he is going off to Federal Prison for many years.
It will not be a picnic for him. But at least he will be in the custody of professionals who know and adhere to the law.
An with the end of this case, he is one step closer to putting the state of Iowa behind him.
Yeah...I was. You have to separate what was said in court from what was said in court in the presence of the jury. I believed O.J. to be guilty from day one. If I would have been on the jury, I would have voted not guilty based on the evidence presented. And I did watch every minute of that trial.
The L.A. Police and the L.A. D.A. screwed up that prosecution...and O.J. had the resources to hire the best defense team. There were enough holes in the timeline, enough broken chains of evidence and enough discreditation of prosecution witnesses that one would have to have a "reasonable doubt."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
You weren't paying attention to the OJ trial either then.
It's not what anyone wants to ignore, it's what the JURY was presented. Remember, trials are NOT designed to discover the truth.
I didn't watch this entire trial so any I cannot intelligently comment on the jury's verdict.
However, I did watch the ENTIRE O.J. trial...and from the evidence the jury was given, they came to the correct verdict. The wrong verdict, but the correct verdict nonetheless based on the evidence they were presented.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sure, no evidence except the ton of stuff YOU want to ignore.
The prosecution did not have a shred of evidence that he willingly employed children.