Samuel Mullet Sr., the domineering leader of a renegade Amish sect, and 15 followers were convicted of federal conspiracy and hate crimes Thursday for orchestrating a series of bizarre beard- and hair-cutting attacks last fall that spread fear through the Amish of eastern Ohio.
The convictions of Mr. Mullet and his followers and family members who carried out the assaults could bring lengthy prison terms. The jury’s verdict vindicated federal prosecutors, who made a risky decision to apply a 2009 federal hate-crimes law to the sect’s violent efforts to humiliate Amish rivals.
Mr. Mullet, 66, founder of a community near Bergholz, Ohio, and 15 followers, including six women, were tried for their roles in five assaults on people that Mr. Mullet had described as enemies. The jury heard three weeks of testimony and deliberated more than four days before reaching a verdict midday Thursday.
Although Mr. Mullet did not directly participate in the attacks, prosecutors labeled him the mastermind of the assaults, in which groups of his followers held down victims and sheared their beards and hair. Among the traditional Amish, men’s long beards and women’s uncut hair are central to religious identity. Prosecutors argued that the attacks were intended to humiliate those who questioned Mr. Mullet’s cultlike methods, like forcing errant followers to live in chicken coops and pressing married women — including his own daughter-in-law — to accept his intimate sexual “counseling.”
Some of the nine victims had offended Mr. Mullet by moving out of his settlement, and others had angered him by refusing to endorse his call to shun people he regarded as enemies of his church.
The peculiar attacks drew national attention when several men from the Bergholz settlement were arrested on state assault charges last fall. The violent assaults, and now the public trial, have been a searing experience for the region’s Amish, who normally lead placid and intensely private lives, without electricity or cars, and try to settle disputes peacefully without involving law enforcement.
The emotional testimony included an elderly woman’s account of her terror as six of her children and their spouses made a surprise late-night visit, with the men holding down her sobbing husband as they hacked off his beard and hair and the women cut her waist-length hair to above the ears as she prayed aloud.
During the testimony, the 16 defendants, in traditional attire, and their lawyers had sat around four tables that filled half the courtroom. In the gallery sat dozens of Amish supporters of the victims, including several of Mr. Mullet’s elderly siblings, who shook their heads as witnesses described Mr. Mullet’s unorthodox methods. Also in the gallery was Mr. Mullet’s wife, who had sat impassively as a woman who used to live in Bergholz spoke of how Mr. Mullet pressured her to come to his bed repeatedly.
The high-profile nature of the case, and the stakes for the defendants, were raised when Steven M. Dettelbach, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, stepped in to charge Mr. Mullet and 15 others, including several of his children and other relatives, with federal conspiracy and hate-crime charges that carry potential sentences of 10 years per count.
The defendants did not deny their roles in the attacks, which were carried out with battery-powered clippers, scissors and razor-sharp shears that are designed to trim horse manes.
Rather, the case turned on the motives for the attacks and whether it was appropriate to make them into a major federal case under a 2009 hate-crimes law.
To prove the most serious charges, the jurors had to be convinced that the defendants had caused “bodily injury,” which could mean “disfigurement,” and that the attacks on nine of the victims were based mainly on religious differences.
Lawyers for the defense argued that cutting hair was not disfigurement and that the attacks resulted from family and personal differences, including a bitter custody battle involving a daughter of Mr. Mullet’s, as well as disputes over the “true” Amish way. They argued that prosecutors had overreached by labeling the assaults as religiously inspired hate crimes.
During the trial, Edward G. Bryan, Mr. Mullet’s lawyer, said that his client may have known about the attacks but did not order them. According to testimony, Mr. Mullet stayed up late to greet attackers when they returned to the compound after one of the assaults, accepting a bag of shorn victims’ hair as well as disposable cameras used to record their humiliation. The prosecutors argued that his followers would not have acted without Mr. Mullet’s approval, citing what one of his sisters called the zombielike obedience of Bergholz residents.
Mr. Bryan said that Mr. Mullet plans to appeal the convictions, largely on the grounds that the federal law had been misapplied.
e
The convictions of Mr. Mullet and his followers and family members who carried out the assaults could bring lengthy prison terms. The jury’s verdict vindicated federal prosecutors, who made a risky decision to apply a 2009 federal hate-crimes law to the sect’s violent efforts to humiliate Amish rivals.
Mr. Mullet, 66, founder of a community near Bergholz, Ohio, and 15 followers, including six women, were tried for their roles in five assaults on people that Mr. Mullet had described as enemies. The jury heard three weeks of testimony and deliberated more than four days before reaching a verdict midday Thursday.
Although Mr. Mullet did not directly participate in the attacks, prosecutors labeled him the mastermind of the assaults, in which groups of his followers held down victims and sheared their beards and hair. Among the traditional Amish, men’s long beards and women’s uncut hair are central to religious identity. Prosecutors argued that the attacks were intended to humiliate those who questioned Mr. Mullet’s cultlike methods, like forcing errant followers to live in chicken coops and pressing married women — including his own daughter-in-law — to accept his intimate sexual “counseling.”
Some of the nine victims had offended Mr. Mullet by moving out of his settlement, and others had angered him by refusing to endorse his call to shun people he regarded as enemies of his church.
The peculiar attacks drew national attention when several men from the Bergholz settlement were arrested on state assault charges last fall. The violent assaults, and now the public trial, have been a searing experience for the region’s Amish, who normally lead placid and intensely private lives, without electricity or cars, and try to settle disputes peacefully without involving law enforcement.
The emotional testimony included an elderly woman’s account of her terror as six of her children and their spouses made a surprise late-night visit, with the men holding down her sobbing husband as they hacked off his beard and hair and the women cut her waist-length hair to above the ears as she prayed aloud.
During the testimony, the 16 defendants, in traditional attire, and their lawyers had sat around four tables that filled half the courtroom. In the gallery sat dozens of Amish supporters of the victims, including several of Mr. Mullet’s elderly siblings, who shook their heads as witnesses described Mr. Mullet’s unorthodox methods. Also in the gallery was Mr. Mullet’s wife, who had sat impassively as a woman who used to live in Bergholz spoke of how Mr. Mullet pressured her to come to his bed repeatedly.
The high-profile nature of the case, and the stakes for the defendants, were raised when Steven M. Dettelbach, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, stepped in to charge Mr. Mullet and 15 others, including several of his children and other relatives, with federal conspiracy and hate-crime charges that carry potential sentences of 10 years per count.
The defendants did not deny their roles in the attacks, which were carried out with battery-powered clippers, scissors and razor-sharp shears that are designed to trim horse manes.
Rather, the case turned on the motives for the attacks and whether it was appropriate to make them into a major federal case under a 2009 hate-crimes law.
To prove the most serious charges, the jurors had to be convinced that the defendants had caused “bodily injury,” which could mean “disfigurement,” and that the attacks on nine of the victims were based mainly on religious differences.
Lawyers for the defense argued that cutting hair was not disfigurement and that the attacks resulted from family and personal differences, including a bitter custody battle involving a daughter of Mr. Mullet’s, as well as disputes over the “true” Amish way. They argued that prosecutors had overreached by labeling the assaults as religiously inspired hate crimes.
During the trial, Edward G. Bryan, Mr. Mullet’s lawyer, said that his client may have known about the attacks but did not order them. According to testimony, Mr. Mullet stayed up late to greet attackers when they returned to the compound after one of the assaults, accepting a bag of shorn victims’ hair as well as disposable cameras used to record their humiliation. The prosecutors argued that his followers would not have acted without Mr. Mullet’s approval, citing what one of his sisters called the zombielike obedience of Bergholz residents.
Mr. Bryan said that Mr. Mullet plans to appeal the convictions, largely on the grounds that the federal law had been misapplied.
e