Activist's Freedom Hinges on Intent in Bomb Case
So, what were Rodney Coronado’s intentions on August 1, 2003 when he demonstrated how to make a bomb from and apple juice jug that could be used to burn down a building?
That is the question at the center of a criminal case against him in a San Diego, California federal court. The answer to that question could make him a free man, or send him to prison for 20 years. It all depends on what the jury will believe that he intended by his demonstration, which was in response to a question from someone in the audience. Coronado had just made a speech to a small group in Hillcrest about his “direct action” activism and the sometimes violent measures he has taken in the past as a radical environmental and animal-rights activist.
The FBI attended Coronado’s speech and made an audio recording of it. Another person videotaped the speech. Neither of the recordings include the question and answer session that followed.
Coronado’s criminal defense lawyers do not dispute that he made the speech, nor that he answered the question following the speech. They don’t even deny that he gave a bomb making demonstration. All of the basic facts of the case are agreed on between the prosecution and Coronado’s lawyers.
Coronado made his speech just hours after an arson fire that completely destroyed an apartment building which was under construction in University City. A radical environmental activist group—one that Coronado has been linked to in the past—claimed responsibility for the fire. In the past decade the group has claimed responsibility for fires that have destroyed ski lodges, housing developments and other projects across the country. However, Coronado was not arrested in connection with the fire.
Two years after the fire in University City and the speech and demonstration in Hillcrest, federal prosecutors got an indictment against Coronado under a rarely used law.
The law that Coronado is charged with breaking makes it a crime to teach or demonstrate how to make a destructive device with the intent that your audience will act on the information and go out and commit a violent crime.
Coronado’s intent is the pivotal question in the case. Prosecutors will attempt to prove that by demonstrating the bomb making technique, he intended to have a person or people in his audience build these devices and go out and commit violence in the course of their activism. They plan to introduce excerpts from Coronado’s previous speeches and passages of his writing to show the jury that he intended to recruit activists who would follow his path of violence.
Prosecutors say that the question from the audience member was worded with the phrase, “for an action.” The defense lawyers dispute that this wording was used in the question. They plan to call the person who asked the question as a witness. As you can imagine, it is not expected or likely for this person to say he asked a question about making a bomb “for an action.” Witnesses generally don’t like to incriminate themselves with their testimony and this person will voluntarily testify for the defense.
The defense lawyers say that Coronado had no intention of inciting violence by his speech or by answering the questions that followed. Coronado, who has already served four years in prison for arson, says that he no longer supports a “direct action” method of activism.