United States v. Stone
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
2012 WL 1034937 (2012)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The government charged nine members of a militant group including leader David Stone Sr. (defendants) with plotting to kill police officers to catalyze an anti-government uprising. The indictment charged the group with seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, and multiple firearms violations. Called the “Hutaree,” the group allegedly acquired guns and explosives, engaged in combat training, and planned to kill several local law enforcement officers. Stone thought the funeral would draw a thousand local and federal officers and allegedly planned to bomb the funeral procession. Most of the evidence involved training sessions with explosives and firearms and Stone making anti-government and anti-law-enforcement statements. In emails and conversations with other group members, Stone called one of his guns a “cop killer,” told others to “stand ready” to go to war against the ATF, said a shape charge could take out a convoy, and that he would need mortars to attack the funeral procession. However, most evidence focused on attacking the “Brotherhood” of local and federal law enforcement officers. No evidence referenced a widespread uprising against the United States government. After trial, the group requested acquittal on all counts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
