Posted on 01/04/2008 5:12:45 PM PST by concretebob
Government case collapses during trial -- judge dismisses all charges
An important victory was won today in the case of 11 defendants who were arrested at the Sept. 15 March on the Capitol, which drew 100,000 anti-war protestors to Washington, DC.
Judge Henry Greene of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed all charges against the defendants, who were accused of crossing a police line. The government's case collapsed in the early stages of the trial during the the testimony of a witness from the Capitol Police.
The protestors asserted that the government and the Capitol Police had illegally and unconstitutionally sought to prevent demonstrators from engaging in First Amendment protected speech and assembly in an area in front of the Capitol building routinely kept open to tourists and others. This attempt to exclude people engaging in free speech activities could not form the basis for a lawful arrest or conviction for "crossing a police line."
The government's case disintegrated as protestors' attorneys demonstrated that the government had withheld key evidence from the defense.
Under pressure from the defense, the government revealed that they had withheld documents and material that was central to the defendants' challenge to the government's efforts to prevent demonstrators from exercising their First Amendment rights at Congress under the pretext of "national security," including a "police sensitive" document supposedly related to "terrorism." The defense argued that the government was using this pretext to prevent antiwar protest at a time when General David Petraeus was making the Bush administration's case that Congress should continue to fund the Iraq war.
Many of the defendants represented themselves and were given pro bono legal counsel and advice from attorneys Michael Madden, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice, Stephanie Snyder of the Georgetown Criminal Justice Clinic, and Harriet Adams. The defendants, including leaders from Veterans for Peace, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), and Iraq Veterans Against the War, were Elliot Adams, Brian Becker, Ellen Barfield, Carla Boccella, Adam Kokesh, Jay Gillen, Rodney Centeno, Polly Miller, Sholom Keller, Shawn Peterson, and Rich Reinhart.
PING the lists please
Does it matter?
The Left just proved they can make the Right blink anytime they want. Damage done.
Judge Greene was nominated to the Superior Court bench by President Reagan and sworn in on May 1, 1981.
REALLY sick of the LIES!
Witholding evidence will do it every time. Judges hate that. As well they should.
Do we want judges who rule on the law or so as to obtain particular results in one or another situation?
Is this all that bad of an outcome??? Remember, if this stuff flies against the loony left, then when Hillary is in charge it will fly against the right. I’d rather have the option to protest against some insane leftist policy and not be busted up by the SWAT team. I understand the sentiment about arresting these rabble-rousers, but we’re supposed to be defenders of the Constitution and better than the left. If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.
Hmmm. Lefty-psycho municipal government with a chick for a police chief. Disorganized, undisciplined (often abusive), and incompetent police force. Could this be a pattern? I'm reminded of San Francisco's Heather J. Fong, Chief of Police. Appointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004, her public prat-falls have been numerous.
But hold on a minute. Lest anyone think I'm saying that women appear to make utterly embarrassing police chiefs who lack the ability to exercise authority and control over the force or to achieve public order . . . um, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Unless someone knows of representative counter-examples. Stats on this question would be interesting, but probably would be so un-PC that I doubt they are obtainable.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It also proves the value of playing by the rule of law.The fact that the government would withhold evidence during a trial should be an affront to every law abiding citizen.If those moonbats want to act like fools in a public place-let them.When they get disorderly,arrest them.But don’t suppress anyone’s first amendment rights.
They really do love to embellish the attendance figures don’t they
Remember the Million Man March?
That there is an in your face, cram it down your throat, blatantly manufactured LIE!
We know 'cause we was there! ;*)
I agree. But I don’t have to like it. because they’d do the same to me.
and the miserable s.o.b.s win again, with a little help, as usual, from a lame-brained anarchist federal judiciary that is neither worth a fart in a whirlwind nor a spit in a hurricane.
I must remember the /sarcasm tag. I must remember the /sarcasm tag. I must remember the /sarcasm tag. I must remember the /sarcasm tag. I must remember the /sarcasm tag.
DC Chapter ping
I don’t see this as an issue with the judge, I see it more as the ability of liberals to engage slick lawyers and their slick lawyer tactics in their various causes.
It is what liberals do best, and they are often allowed to play to their strength.
Sounds like the government scroooooooooooooowed it up!
Pinging the list.
I’d love to know what evidence was allegedly suppressed.
Pinging the list.
I’d love to know what evidence was allegedly suppressed.
Oops.
I’m glad the defendants were able to prove the government tried to suppress evidence. Next time when it is you or me being charged maybe they’ll remember to play by the rules.
It would probably make your blood boil over. Have a nice upcoming day. I gotta hit the rack.
Sleep tight.
Was this the protest where graffiti was found on the base of the Capitol building? Or was this a later protest, where they might have been deliberately trying to prevent further defacing of the building?
It looks to me like a case of the prosecution not putting much effort into the case. It wasn’t anything like a murder or rape, so why bother? Besides - the defendants were just a bunch of lowlife nutcases. How could anyone take them seriously?
They forgot about the herd of attorneys hanging around waiting.
Now a bunch of lowlifes will be declared heroes by the leftists. When they lead their next pro-jihadist demonstration they will have even less respect for police and property.
This was a deliberate, advertixed beforehand, assault on the ‘rules’ set by the Capitol Police on which areas could be used for protest. Those arrested were part of a ‘die-in’ as I recall.
Somehow I am thinking there is more to this story.
What is there to withold? The written law, pictures?
I remember the news reports and pictures here on FR.
Was this the “die-in” where they obstructed traffic of other visitors? Was it the noise and crowd who entered the offices?
Seems like they are always up to something confrontational in hopes of an event like this.
Sigh.
Well, at least “Army Mom” didn’t get busted for tossing that nasty left-wing woman into the Cannas up by the Capitol.
The question of whether they were actually guilty of the charges seems to have been ignored, as it often is when procedural issues are the basis for the rulings.
The judge should have made the withheld evidence available to the jury, if there was a jury, or taken it into consideration himself if there was not.
Often this "withheld evidence" turns out to be pretty non consequential, but that should be up to those who determine the facts.
Uh, that's what they did, and what the police did. Their freedom to exercise their first amendment rights ends were the rights of the rest of the public to "play tourist" at the capital building begins. This is not a restriction of free speech, but a "time place and manner" restriction. For example, you can't urinate in public on an effigy of Jane Fonda or John Kerry, as much as that would be making a political statement.
Shouldn't the original posting indicate that the posted article is a copy of an ANSWER propaganda release?
We should know what they are saying, but ANSWER are notorious liars. The charges were probably dismissed, but I would not trust ANSWER to accurately describe the grounds. They sure lied about 100,000 protesters assembling for their event.
This part of the story is quite suspect:
The government's case disintegrated as protestors' attorneys demonstrated that the government had withheld key evidence from the defense.Under pressure from the defense, the government revealed that they had withheld documents and material that was central to the defendants' challenge to the government's efforts to prevent demonstrators from exercising their First Amendment rights at Congress under the pretext of "national security," including a "police sensitive" document supposedly related to "terrorism."
That explanation is almost certainly twisted, much less than fully truthful.
The defense used the criminal trial to fish for documents and info that would reveal the sources and methods used by the police to evaluate threats of terrorism and/or illegal (violent or destructive) protests. Police and prosecutors don't want to give up the "police sensitive" info.
For example, suppose a confidential witness (CW) told authorities that he heard his leftist roommate talking about dropping a red (as in blood) paint bomb on the Capitol if he can get close enough during the protests. So the police define a police line back 20 yards back from the Capitol, but don't want to compromise CW in the trial because he may provide helpful info in the future.
Leftists can't dispute that they crossed the police line. So they cleverly argue (but falsely and without evidence)that the police improperly set the line to somehow interfere with their right to protest. (It's absurd as the police line was relatively close to the Capitol, not set 3 blocks away.) They demand evidence from the govt as to why the line was set where it was.
Surprisingly, under these circumstances, the judge thought the govt should have revealed the document/info. Without knowing the details of the document/info and seeing the discovery requests and orders, you can't tell whether the judge's rulings were right.
You both have said so much better than I that the story is incomplete and lacking honest coverage.
I tried to find the original source, but could not find a link. Thank you for pointing out the very questionable slant to this story. It might be far from the actual truth.
BillF, as usual you have done a fine job of pointing out the possibilities of actual facts. Keep us posted if you find more information.
Note I did not claim that the reprobates in question were indeed innocent/not guilty. I merely said that the government screwed it up, IMO. After the mess with all the graffiti on the Capitol steps some time ago, I can’t blame the cops for keeping them back a distance.
That this is an ANSWER/commie propaganda piece certainly does not help clear the fog any.
Right. I didn’t think that you or anyone else here thinks that they were innocent.
My points are 1) you can’t believe the ANSWER liars about how it happened, 2) there is not really enough to tell how it played out in court.
You may be right that the poor result was from a govt (police/prosecutors) screw up.
Or, it may be that the judge made errors, causing the leftists to escape justice.
Or, the leftists dodged paying for their law-breaking because their lawyers used a clever shyster trick to get them off.
Could have been a combination of the above.
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.