[IPSM] G&M: John Graham won't get extradition hearing

[Nora Butler Burke]

Vancouver man won't get extradition hearing

The Canadian Press

December 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM EST

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for the
extradition of John Graham, a Vancouver man accused in a South Dakota
homicide more than three decades ago.

The court refused Thursday to hear Mr. Graham's appeal of lower-court
rulings granting extradition.

Mr. Graham was arrested in 2003 and charged in the 1975 death of native
activist Anna Mae Aquash, who was shot in the back of the head at the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation.

Ms. Aquash, a Mi'kmaq originally from Nova Scotia, was killed during a
period of native unrest and protests by the American Indian Movement
(AIM).

AIM, a native activist group, was involved in the occupation of Wounded
Knee, S.D., in 1973 where activists and authorities exchanged gunfire
during a 71-day stand off.

Authorities allege that Ms. Aquash was murdered on orders from AIM,
because the group believed she was an FBI informant.

They say she fled to Denver from South Dakota in fear of her life, but was
abducted by Graham and others and brought back for questioning by AIM
members.

Arlo Looking Cloud, Mr. Graham's co-accused, was convicted of first-degree
murder two years ago and sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Looking Cloud told FBI agents in a videotaped statement shown in court
that he saw Mr. Graham kill Ms. Aquash. He later recanted, saying he had
been plied with alcohol and drugs.

Mr. Graham has said he had nothing to do with Ms. Aquash's death, that the
two met in Minneapolis and struck up a friendship as young AIM members and
fellow Canadians.

Mr. Graham's lawyers argued that the evidence against him was feeble.

Lower courts agreed that there were deficiencies in the record of the case
provided by U.S. authorities, but they said there was enough evidence to
justify extradition.

Mr. Graham's extradition was ordered in June, 2006, but that was stayed
pending appeals.

As is usual in leave-to-appeal cases, the Supreme Court gave no reasons
for its decision.