Wait! Was she talking about getting rid of herself? I always thought that orangutans had longer hair and didn't wear glasses?
Posted on 07/13/2019 10:20:47 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Now, let’s see, if someone called a Dem an orangutan, the media would he up I arms .. double standard from the moronic press ..
Isn’t this the woman who hoped Clarence Thomas’s wife would feed him lots of rich, buttery food so he would get sick and die?
She’s a hater. She’s not worth our time.
Oh, and BTW, why is it OK for these lefties to call Bush a “smirking chimp” and call Trump an “orange orangutan,” but an absolute no-no to use any animal comparison in connection with BO?
People who live in glass houses and all that, Miz Malveaux. You know, just saying.
LOL!! Your not kidding, She is the Orange Orangutan. Liberals always project!!
Economist? That’s one big lie!
And “her twin sister” is the DA in Chicago! Someone should throw them both a couple of bananas.
She’s wearing orange in this photo, indeed.
She really should not be talking about Orangutans.
and speaking of orange orangutans ...
haven’t seen Julianne in years
Imagine if anyone called Zer0 a black orangutan. There would be riots in the streets, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
The irony of this orangutan saying this while dressed in orange is just too cloying.
I may have just insulted orangutans unintentionally though, so I apologize for that in advance.
Wait! Was she talking about getting rid of herself? I always thought that orangutans had longer hair and didn't wear glasses?
Julianne Malware is ugly to the bone. I’d strongly advise her not to get into other people’s “looks”.
She is not even a mammal, she looks like a tapeworm.
She is jealous as hell of Trump’s hair. I guarantee it.
I noticed she looks very orange herself. Maybe she’s subconsciously referring to herself.
Julianne Malveaux appeals from the judgment order of the district court finding her guilty of assaulting an airline attendant during a flight, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46506 (1994) and 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4) (1994). Initially, Malveaux contends that the district court erred by denying her motion for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Because Malveaux made this motion at the close of the Government’s case, but did not renew it at the close of her case, we need only consider whether Malveaux’s conviction resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Vaquero, 997 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir.1993).
2
The evidence in this case, however, firmly supported the district court’s finding of guilt. The pertinent statute proscribes assault by striking, beating, or wounding. The statute has been construed by courts to be akin to a common law simple battery, requiring physical contact. See United States v. Guilbert, 692 F.2d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 88 (8th Cir.1980). Several witnesses testified that Malveaux grabbed and shook the victim in this case. In fact, Malveaux conceded that she grabbed the victim, but claimed that her actions were defensive. Accordingly, we conclude that there was ample evidence of sufficient physical contact in this case to support Malveaux’s conviction.
3
Malveaux also contends that the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss this case as a vindictive prosecution, and by denying her motion for discovery of Government files containing information which might have supported a selective prosecution claim. We disagree. While Malveaux’s brief implies that the Government’s decision to bring federal charges following the dismissal of a state battery charge against her is suspicious in view of her work as a civil rights advocate and past criticisms of law enforcement agencies, there is no dispute that the state charges were dropped for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, there is no basis for concluding that the Government preferred, as Malveaux also implies, to prosecute her in federal court in order to subject her to more stringent penalties. Moreover, we note that Malveaux faced similar penalties whether convicted in state or federal court.
4
We also conclude that the district court properly denied Malveaux’s motion for discovery because she failed to produce any evidence tending to prove that her prosecution had a discriminatory effect. See United States v. Olvis, 97 F.3d 739, 743 (4th Cir.1996). She pointed to no similarly situated persons of a different race whose actions did not result in prosecution, but merely sought discovery based on counsel’s belief, from a review of other assault cases, that a large number of the defendants in those cases were minorities. This was plainly insufficient to meet the “rigorous” evidentiary threshold for obtaining discovery to support a selective prosecution claim. Id.
5
Finally, we reject Malveaux’s contention that the Government went outside the scope of rebuttal in submitting evidence to rebut her character evidence intended to show that she was not a combative person. The Government’s evidence related to Malveaux’s prior altercations with two men. The rebuttal evidence tended to show that Malveaux pushed an elderly man to the ground after he was involved in a minor traffic accident with Malveaux, and that she verbally berated another man who mistakenly came to the door of her home believing it to be the home of a friend who lived two doors down from her in a complex of townhouses apparently having a similar appearance. As this evidence clearly tends to rebut the claim that Malveaux is a noncombative person, we find no error.
6
Accordingly, the judgment order of the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/734549/united-states-v-julianne-malveaux/
OMG, she’s the one who resembles an orangutan.
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.