Posted on 06/26/2013 10:54:45 AM PDT by Nachum
Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.
According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.
In addition to possibly spending years in jail, Olson will also be held liable for fines of up to $13,000 over the anti-big-bank slogans that were left using washable children's chalk on a sidewalk outside of three San Diego, California branches of Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the US government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent after bad bets went south.
The Reader reports that Olson’s hearing had gone as poorly as his attorney might have expected, with Judge Howard Shore, who is presiding over the case, granting Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard's motion to prohibit attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the United States' fundamental First Amendment rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
I’m torn. Part of me says this “judge” is way out of bounds because this does appear to be an obvious free speech issue. The other part of me sees that this is probably one of those damned OWS protesters (anti-bigbank) and I’d like to see him rot in jail because he’s stupid.
It’s a toss-up.
WHAT EXACTLY!
I’m sorry - I should have said “What a Clymer”
Common sense. Or, more appropriately, that is what the judge is missing. It's the same as expelling a student for having an aspirin under some sort of 'zero tolerance for drugs' policy. Obviously, taking an aspirin for a headache is not the same as dealing crack out of your locker. Nor is writing on the sidewalk with chalk the same as defacing private property with spray paint. Blind application of rules and laws is not justice without thought to the purpose of the rule or the good old fashioned right or wrong is not justice; it's idiocy.
Even mentioning jury nullification in my local court could earn you contempt of court jail time.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/academics/faculty/bio.php?ID=663
the judge appears to be a professor at the University of San Diego....oh boy
Now that is ironic.
And that is why it should be practiced but never mentioned, as such.
Last time I got to voir dire before a trial I was one of the top 12 potential jurors (based on seating position). One of the lawyers asked whether anyone had heard of jury nullification and I gave too detailed of answer, so I got sent home before the trial.
I, unlike the defendant and every person defending him including many freepers am perfectly capable of communicating without vandalism.
For a charge of Vandalism to actually stick, if he has a decent lawyer, there has to be criminal intent.
The arguement that he was making a point is valid, and also that he went out of his way to utilize a temporary and non-destructive means of doing so.
The Judge is a douche and needs removal from the bench...
No criminal intent, no destruction of property = No Vandalism...
Is that hard to understand?
The bank said that it cost $6k to clean up the “damage.” That sounds like a lot to me, but if they can show proof that they incurred that cost, I can see fining the defendant for that plus punitive damages.
I agree 13 years in jail is ridiculous, but I don’t know how real that is. The media often reports “potential sentences” that way for sensationalism. The defendant commits a crime, gets charged with multiple counts, each of which carries some number of months sentence. But the fact is there are usually sentencing guidelines, which combine the terms so that they generally run concurrently. So the defendant ultimately gets, say, five years, whereas the total “potential” sentence reported by the media is 125 years.
I agree it would be a travesty for the judge to give this guy a 13-year sentence, but I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about that being reality.
We shall see what penalty hizzoner sees fit to impose.
This case is so vital, and so important that the judge has seen fit to suspend the accused’s first amendment rights, why would he care about his rights under the eight amendment?
Anarcho-tyranny in action, plain and simple.
You are absolutely right about the sentence possibility probably being 'worst case - never going to happen.' I didn't read the article and see the $6k cleanup bill. I pictured more of a sidewalk chalk drawing gone with the next rain.
Threatening a defendant with obscenely long sentences is the government’s own version of jury nullification - forcing the defendant to take a plea and give up his right to a jury trial, in order to avoid that obscene sentence.
Nice plus mark for the prosecutor, a career builder, saves the state or the Feds the expense of a trial, admitted criminal serves six month to a year easy time.
What not to like? Aside from the harm done to the Constitution, common sense, justice, a level playing field...
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.