By David L. Shaw 

The Cayuga Indian Nation's land claim damages trial will remain in Syracuse.

 Thursday, U.S. District Judge Neal P. McCurn denied a motion by lawyers for the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York to move the trial to New York City. The trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 8.

 McCurn also denied a motion by the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma to prevent the state from introducing new evidence that it paid the Cayugas fair and adequate compensation for the land over the years.

 He reserved decision on two pre-trial motions filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

 One seeks to sever the state from the other defendants - Seneca and Cayuga counties and 7,000 private landowners - for purposes of a trial.

 The other would order that the state be liable for all monetary damages awarded by a jury, even those that may be assessed against the other defendants.

 McCurn heard oral arguments on the motions before issuing his rulings.

 "Obtaining a jury in upstate New York that is unbiased will be terribly difficult, perhaps utterly impossible," said Martin R. Gold of New York, lawyer for the Cayugas. He told McCurn that moving the trial to the Southern District in New York City is legal and in the interests of justice.

 "I agree that normally this district (the northern district) would be the place for such a trial. But the key issue is getting a fair jury from a pool that has a personal and financial interest in a certain outcome and who have been prejudiced against the Cayugas by anti-Indian and anti-land claim press coverage in this area," Gold said.

 "There would be no such bias or prejudice and among jurors in the southern district. There has been very little press coverage there. We could seat a fair jury very quickly. The problem here is irrational hysteria and fear among the people, even though eviction has been ruled out," Gold said.

 Opposition to moving the trial came from William L. Dorr, lawyer for Cayuga and Seneca counties, and from attorneys for the 7,000 private landowners and the state.

 After Thursday's court session, Dorr called it a good day for the defense. Gold said he sought the change of venue because he felt "it's the right thing to do," declining to comment on McCurn's ruling.

 In court, Dorr argued that Gold did not meet the legal requirements for transferring the case to another district. He said it is a local case that involves real estate in the area, thus it must be heard in either the northern or western judicial districts.

 "He has made unsupported allegations of widespread bias in the potential jury pool in upstate New York. There has been no showing of bias or racism, only news articles. A jury can cast aside preconceived notions, and that can be determined in jury questioning," Dorr said.

 Christopher W. Hall, assistant state attorney general, added that the news articles could be seen as objective and said there was no scientific evidence of bias.

 McCurn agreed with the defense. After a recess, he returned to the bench and said the local nature of the case would make it improper to transfer to another federal court district.

 He said Gold "has not submitted any proof of prejudicial pre-trial publicity creating a biased jury pool. There are no studies, no polling, no scientific evidence."

 McCurn also said many news articles are not adverse to the Cayugas. "In fact, some may say they are adverse to the defense," he said.

 Regarding the motion to prevent the state from offering new evidence on the issue of fair compensation to the Cayugas for their land, McCurn said it fails to meet the three legal criteria and must be denied.

 He said the state's position on compensation would have to be contrary to a position taken at a prior legal proceeding, would have had to have been a position adopted by the court and there must be misconduct by the state shown.

 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe lawyer Glenn W. Feldman argued that that state has previously acknowledged it made "profit" of $247,609 from the sale of the tribal lands and that should be part of a settlement to the Cayugas.

 "The issue of compensation is an open question for the court," McCurn said.

 The motion to split the state from the other defendants and have the first trial be against the state only, with others possibly to follow, was made by Hank Meshorer of the Justice Department. He also made the motion to hold the state liable for all monetary damages awarded by a jury after trial.

 "We are here because the state bought this land in violation of the law, sold it off and allowed it to be transferred many times. It is obvious they are the most liable, and we will be seeking the largest amount of the award from the state," Meshorer said.

 "We think we have a fair method of arriving at a fair value for the land. The state acted in bad faith and the other defendants acted in good faith. We want to sever the state from the 7,000 private landowners and avoid 7,000 individual jury trials on damages," Meshorer said.

 "Why don't you just discontinue the action against the other defendants?" McCurn asked.

 "We have considered that, but we can't be sure the award a jury may set against the state will be sufficient, even though we don't like the idea of suing 7,000 of our own citizens," Meshorer said.

 Opposition to the motion came from the state.

 After the court session, McCurn met privately with the lawyers to discuss the status of settlement talks that have been ongoing since January.