Theater of the absurdHIV positive Michigan man fights bioterrorism charge after allegedly biting neighbor
Daniel Allen of Michigan got into a fight with his neighbor; the neighbor complained that Allen bit him during the fight; when, a few days later, Allen admitted in a TV interview that he was gay and HIV positive, the prosecution charged him with violating Michigan’s bioterrorism law; the prosecution claims that the law’s reference to using a “harmful device” in the commission of bioterror attack may be applied to Allen “use” of his HIV virus as a weapon
Daniel Allen could never have anticipated that his act of taking a football belonging to neighborhood kids playing near his house and flinging it down the street would kindle a dust-up with neighbors, that would in turn draw national attention to his case.
The prosecution claims that during the confrontation Allen, openly gay and HIV positive, bit neighbor Winfred Fernandis Jr through his lower lip. The defense claims that Fernandis bit himself as he and relatives beat Allen up, and that one actually bit Allen’s finger.
Detroit Crime Examiner’s Robert Brignall writes that shortly after the October 2009 incident, Clinton Township police arrested Allen, and he was charged with two specific intent assault crimes, including assault with intent to maim. Allen’s maximum exposure under those charges would have been ten years.
Then Allen, 44, gave a TV interview revealing that he was HIV positive. The prosecutor subsequently added a charge under a state bioterrorism law, which targets those who possess or use a harmful device. In this case, according to the prosecutor, the “harmful device” was Allen’s HIV. Addition of that charge increased Allen’s exposure to fifteen years.
Judge Linda Davis of the 41-B district court sided with the prosecution by allowing the bioterrorism count to be added, and prosecutors have tried to use it as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations, but the defense was having none of that.
The defendant’s motion to quash and the two amicus briefs, which raise the following issues:
- There is no photographic proof of the alleged biting, and no proof that Allen was HIV positive on the day of the incident
- There is no scientific evidence that HIV can be transmitted in a human bite absent blood in the saliva
- The intent of the legislature in enacting the anti-terrorist statute was that it be applied only to actual terrorists, not to a simple fight between neighbors
- Prosecuting Allen under the statute contributes to misunderstanding about modes of HIV transmission, and stigmatizes people with HIV
The trial of Allen, initially set to begin Tuesday, was put over and a pretrial conference was scheduled for 3 June. Judge Maceroni said he would issue a written decision on the Motion to Quash and supporting briefs before the 3 June pretrial conference.
