Threatening protesters with 75 years is totally reasonable, rules #j20 judge


I find myself gobsmacked in reading these statements. The entire argument by the hundreds of defence lawyers for the J20 defendants mass arrested on Trump’s inauguration is that taking protesters to trial for 55+ years worth of charges is an act of intimidation in and of itself, in violation of the First Amendment. The j20 judge just kind of… completely ignores the implications of Kerkhoff’s [the prosecutor] actions and ploughs straight ahead.

“The government comes in and says my client is liable for a felony—all they’ve established is that he’s arrested, not even what he did during the march,” defense attorney Veronice Holt argued in July. “You can’t just say, ‘As many people as the government can catch need to stand trial.'”

But Judge Lynn Leibovitz writes in her decision that the charging document has all of the necessary specificity to go to trial. The government says that all of the defendants operated as part of the “black bloc,” using those tactics to commit violence and evade identification. Because the government is using aiding and abetting and conspiracy liability, “each defendant charged in the indictment may be liable for the acts of others alleged in the indictment,” writes the judge

Yes, Leibovitz. That’s the fucking problem. If these charges result in conviction, it’s a blank cheque to police to scoop up as many people as they want, as long as some twit breaks a window.

She also rejected the argument that the charges amounted to a First Amendment violation. Defense lawyers said that people might protest less if they feared they would be held legally responsible for the actions of others.

But Leibovitz writes that those arguments are, in essence, also about whether the government has evidence against the individual defendants that would justify their charges, a question she writes is better addressed at trial, the first of which is slated to start in November. She concludes that the indictment’s details survive both First and Fourth Amendment challenges.

In essence? Threatening you with several decades is entirely reasonable and not at all intimidation.

Solidarity is now evidence for conspiracy.

I’m sure the freeze peachers will be here any minute now.

-Shiv

Comments

  1. blf says

    Solidarity is now evidence for conspiracy.

    I look forward to seeing most USAian police forces imprisoned.

  2. Vivec says

    @1
    Right???
    If this is the standard we go buy, there should be whole precincts of cops serving consecutive life sentences.

  3. says

    Remember the guy I posted about who made all the bombs for the weathermen? He got 13 years. So apparently protesting is a more serious crime than putting bombs under cop cars.

    blf@#1:
    I look forward to seeing most USAian police forces imprisoned.

    The one that got me was when they passed a law in Maryland that nobody who had been convicted of domestic abuse could get a permit to carry a gun (keep those abuser weapons at home!) and they had to change the law because too many cops complained that they couldn’t carry any more..

  4. Siobhan says

    @3 Marcus Ranum

    The one that got me was when they passed a law in Maryland that nobody who had been convicted of domestic abuse could get a permit to carry a gun (keep those abuser weapons at home!) and they had to change the law because too many cops complained that they couldn’t carry any more..

    Goes well with “all mass shooters have domestic violence histories.”

    Really? Well that explains a lot of cop conduct doesn’t it.