Skip to comments.San Diego jury erases 'stupid' chalk charges
Posted on 07/02/2013 9:33:02 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
SAN DIEGO JURY ERASES 'STUPID' CHALK CHARGES
[ ... major snippage] The judge, who imposed a gag order on participants during the trial, refused to allow Olson's attorney to argue that the messages were constitutionally protected free speech. [... snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Fortunately the defendant didn’t use the water-soluble chalk to write pro-life slogans on the sidewalk. That would have been a felony offense in Calipornia.
More proof that judges work for THE GOVERNMENT, not for the constituion, which is designed to protect people FROM the government.
Why don’t the popos and preosecutor go after all of those little kids chalking up (defacing) the public sidewalks with those hopscotch boxes?
Speaking as a former Prosecutor, I’d seriously consider firing the idiot that charged this and/or didn’t dismiss it.
No doubt he will be recharged with violating civil rights now....
This seems like a case of jury nullification; the man clearly did write on the sidewalk, making him factually guilty of the action he was charged with, and that is typically all the jury is allowed to consider - not with whether the charge fit the law or the law was reasonable.
Jury nullification. May the jurors never admit it and be jailed for contempt of court.
Crony capitalism at it's best? And, as always, who pays for it?
It’ll be called chalk abuse or violating the rights of calcium-Americans
The third judge didn't mention jury nullification by name, but made a point of detailing the proper ways of getting a law changed, petitioning the legislature, running for office, public protest, rioting in the streets (OK, she didn't actually say "rioting in the streets"), etc. and if we disagreed with a law we should explore those options rather than taint the legal process as a juror.
Sadly in some cities they have.
I may be wrong, but once the trial is over I don't believe the judge can assess contempt of court, at least not for statement made outside of court.
At least I've never heard of anyone being jailed for jury nullification.
Though I have heard a foolproof way of getting out of jury duty is showing up with a copy of The Fully Informed Juror to read while waiting around.
No idea, but I wouldn’t put it past 2 out of three judges (see post #13) to try.
One could spend months in jail while it worked its way up through the system.
“The trial was the latest in a series of dustups between City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who prosecuted the case, and Mayor Bob Filner, who called it a “nonsense prosecution” that came in response to complaints from Bank of America.”
As a former prosecutor myself, I would say a “City Attorney” is not real prosecutor. I would expect my deputy prosecutors would have a lot more significant cases to pursue than this.
We have a large, outdoor music ampitheater in our jurisdiction with a large grass/lawn seating area. One year, they booked a rowdy death metal concert, and the attendees tore up the sod in the lawn area and threw it at each other. The following year they booked the same concert, and this time staked down huge canvas tarps over the lawn area. This time, the attendees ripped up the tarps to get to the sod so they could tear it up and throw it at each other. The amphitheater staff had the off-duty cops/security guys arrest a bunch of the attendees, but certainly in no way all of the ones who tore up the sod. I refused to file charges and had them all released. My office was not there to guarantee a profit for the management when they knew full well who they were inviting into their house. My action deterred them from booking the act again, which is really a much better outcome for the community and all involved.
Can we fly this jury to Sanford, FL?
Ran across a case from 1996(?) where a juror in CA hung the jury and then later bragged about her nullification.
She was prosecuted and convicted, but not for contempt of court. Some jury tampering charge or such. Appeals followed over several years and the case was eventually dropped.
But in this case they had evidence from before the trial that the juror never intended to address the issues fairly. I don’t think a judge can do a thing against a juror who simply came to a different opinion during deliberation. Especially if he keeps his mouth shut.
One would also have to hope that none of the other jurors squealed.
Still it’s a tiny bit comforting that she wasn’t detained on a contempt charge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.