HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! Looking for something to read instead? Check out our new Working Futures anthology »
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! Looking for something to read instead? Check out our new Working Futures anthology »

Good News: Trump Protestors Accused Of 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment' Acquitted

from the first-amendment-still-works dept

Last week we wrote about the insanity of the DOJ's argument in trying to convict a group of protestors at Trump's inauguration. As we noted, the DOJ didn't even try to connect the defendants with any violence or property damage, but merely said that by being near the property damage they were accomplices, because they made the actual perpetrators harder to catch. When talking about the First Amendment and the right to assemble, Assistant US Attorney Rizwan Quereshi, incredibly, claimed that the defendants were "hiding behind the First Amendment." Even more incredibly, on Monday of this week another Assistant US Attorney, Jennifer Kerkhoff, tried to tell the jury that the judge's instruction about reasonable doubt "doesn't mean a whole lot", leading the judge to jump in and say that Kerkhoff clearly didn't mean to say that:

Kerkhoff: The defense has talked to you a little bit about reasonable doubt. You're going to get an instruction from the Judge. And you can tell it's clearly written by a bunch of lawyers. It doesn't mean a whole lot. But look at the last line.

The Court: So wait...

Kerkhoff: I apologize.

The Court: I know she didn't mean to say what she just said. But --

Kerkhoff:: It means a lot.

The Court: I just need to say, ladies and gentlemen, you will be instructed on reasonable doubt. You must follow each and every word of my instructions on reasonable doubt.

Kerkhoff: Yes.

The Court: Ms. Kerkhoff did not mean to trivialize any portion of it, and it's just as important that you understand --

Kerkhoff: I apologize.

The Court: -- that every word of the reasonable doubt instructions, like all the rest of my instructions, are very important.

Kerkhoff: It's an important instruction.

Well, it appears that the jury did, in fact, pay attention to the reasonable doubt instructions, and has acquitted all six defendants on all charges. That includes Alexei Wood, the journalist who was covering the protests, as well as two other defendants who were there as medics to treat anyone injured (the DOJ tried to paint them as accomplices who helped fix people up to do more damage).

This case was important for trying to criminalize reporting, but to an even larger extent for trying to criminalize protesting as a group, where all members of a protest would somehow be considered liable for any damage done by any member. Thankfully, the jury saw through it and found all defendants not guilty on all charges. One hopes that the Justice Department (which rarely loses cases) will maybe think more carefully in the future about bringing such bullshit charges against people for exercising their First Amendment rights. And that matters quite a bit, as there are 188 other defendants from the same protest who are still awaiting trial.

Filed Under: alexei wood, doj, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, inauguration, j20, jennifer kerkhoff, protests, rizwan quereshi


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2017 @ 3:05pm

    Oh look

    more moronic fighting over the Constitution by two sides that seek to destroy it!

    The R's and the D's don't always agree on HOW to destroy the Constitution but they damn sure agree on destroying it SOMEHOW!

    These people should have obviously been acquitted.
    The lawyers being held in contempt is a tricky one. Sure the judge can instruct the Jury but there is no legal requirement for the Jury to act like a puppet on a string for either the Judge, the Prosecution, or the defense.

    Jury Nullification is the principal that jurors are seeking to render a "not guilty" verdict because they believe that the law in question is either "unjust on its face" or "unjust in application in this specific instance"

    Yes the entire legal community does not want you know about it because their life blood revolves around tricking jurors into thinking they can only judge a defendant by the law and not on principal.

    If jurors were only intended to judge by the law, then we would not need jurors, any Judge can create the same injustice and tyranny against the people, just faster.

    http://fija.org/

    Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    In short the Father of the Constitution clearly indicated that "The Jury" is your most sacred and honorable duty you can perform for your fellow citizens. When government tries to oppress you with tyrannical law then it is up to your fellow citizens to come to your aid.

    Well... good luck with that... based on the back and forth I frequently see at TD none of you understand shit!

    Every Nation gets the government it deserves! Stop voting in incumbent that have done wrong, avoid political parties and force candidates to come out into the light instead of hiding behind their party and politics.

    If you are pissed off at the other guys for being corrupt, clean your own house first!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.