KENNETH TILSON: If that incident had taken place in St. Paul, Minnesota or any place else in the country, we could have expected, at the most, a charge of perhaps disturbing the peace or unlawful assembly. We could have expected a sentence of perhaps 10 days suspended or $20 fine suspended.
Instead, Sarah received a savage sentence of one to five years under an unconstitutional-- a law that we believe is unconstitutional at the conclusion of a trial that was filled with the most outrageous judicial behavior. What is presently involved legally in the case is an effort to free Sarah from jail, pending appeal for in spite of the peculiar nature of the law under which she was sentenced.
In spite of the peculiar and outrageous nature of the trial involving the moving of the trial to a building without windows, a civil defense building, the excluding of the public from the building, and all of these things, and in spite of the fact that the government concedes, there are very serious issues involved in her conviction. Nonetheless, without any reason whatsoever, the courts of South Dakota have unconstitutionally denied to Sarah, to Kenny-Dowall, and to Robert High Eagle the right to bail.
One can only understand the Sarah Bad Heart Bull situation, the Custer situation if one understands that South Dakota is to the Indian people what Mississippi and Georgia and Alabama were to the Black Americans in the 1930s and early '40s. Today, the only and predominant issue in the gubernatorial campaign and in the attorney general campaigns of South Dakota is for each party to accuse the other of being soft on aim.
I suggest to anybody who has any question about it that they buy any day's local newspaper from Sioux falls, South Dakota, or Rapid City, and they will see no less than a dozen news stories, all aimed by various politicians at proving that they can be tougher with the Indians than their opponent can be. That is the political climate in South Dakota, and that is the reason why Sarah and her co-defendants are in prison today.
In 2008, Minnesota's voters passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution: to protect drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve arts and cultural heritage; to support parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater.
Efforts to digitize this initial assortment of thousands of historical audio material was made possible through the Minnesota Legacy Amendment’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. A wide range of Minnesota subject matter is represented within this collection.
Views and opinions expressed in the content do not represent the opinions of APMG. APMG is not responsible for objectionable content and language represented on the site. Please use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report a piece of content. Thank you.
Transcriptions provided are machine generated, and while APMG makes the best effort for accuracy, mistakes will happen. Please excuse these errors and use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report an error. Thank you.