Todays Wall Street Journal:
Amish Beard-Cutting Convictions Reversed
By MARK PETERS and CAROLINE PORTER CONNECT Aug. 27, 2014 10:23 p.m. ET 
Samuel Mullet Sr. at his Ohio home in 2011. His lawyer says Mr. Mullet is 'happy' with Wednesday's ruling. Associated Press
A federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned the criminal convictions of 16 Amish men and women in a series of beard and hair cuttings, finding error in how the jury was instructed on determining whether a hate crime occurred.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the convictions on federal hate-crime charges and returned the case to the lower court. A spokesman for Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney for the northern district of Ohio, said his office disagrees with the ruling and is reviewing its options, which include appealing the ruling, retrying the cases or dismissing the charges.
The case against members of the eastern Ohio community of Bergholz involved a series of attacks in which other Amish were physically restrained while their hair and beards were shorn. Prosecutors charged those involved under the federal hate-crime law because the Amish consider the length of their hair a sign of religious devotion and the cuttings were to enforce a particular view of the religion.
A jury in September 2012 found the 16 defendants guilty of hate crimes, including Bishop Samuel Mullet Sr., who was sentenced later to 15 years. They all appealed the hate-crime conviction, but Wednesday's ruling doesn't affect the convictions of certain defendants on charges such as concealing evidence.
The appeals court found the lower court erred in adopting jury instructions recommended by prosecutors. The instructions required religion to be a "significant factor" in motivating the beard cuttings. But the appeals court sided with the instruction of the defense that argued a hate crime occurred if it was shown the defendants would not have acted "but for" the religious beliefs of the victims.
"Requiring a causal connection between a defendant's biased attitudes and his impermissible actions ensures that the criminal law targets conduct, not bigoted beliefs that have little connection to the crime," wrote Judge Jeffrey Sutton.
At trial, the defense argued that the victims and defendants shared the same religion, and the attacks were tied to family disputes and personality conflicts.
By suggesting that the hate crime must serve as the primary motivator of the crime rather than simply one of the motivators, the court of appeals' ruling could limit the use of the hate-crimes law in future cases, according to Heidi Beirich, a hate-crime expert with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
"There have not been many hate-crime prosecutions under this federal law," she said. "Given that this is now an interpretation of that law, this is certainly a narrowing of the application of this law in this district."
Mr. Mullet was encouraged by the ruling, said Edward Bryan, his lawyer. He is currently at a federal prison in Texas, which his family hasn't been able to visit because of challenges to travel created by their religious beliefs.
"He's very happy, but he's also being very cautious because we are not anywhere near out of the woods," Mr. Bryan said.
Write to Mark Peters at [email protected] and Caroline Porter at[email protected]