- Denis Theriault
- Eviction at Chapman Square
After more than eight months of fighting—and in what amounts to a huge, and hugely complicated, legal victory—many Occupy Portland defendants have finally won the right to jury trials.
This morning in the Multnomah County Courthouse, Judge Cheryl Albrecht ruled that a recent appellate court decision does indeed apply to some, but not all, Occupy cases. The decision is this: Occupiers who were originally arrested on criminal trespass charges that were later reduced to violations can now get both state-paid legal counsel and trials in front of a jury, not just a judge. And the implications could be far-reaching.
For starters, Albrecht’s decision means many cases that have already gone to trial, like the trials last month for November 13, 2011 eviction of Chapman Square, could now be re-litigated, this time with juries and legal counsel. This could prove to be either a hassle or a boon for defendants who thought their fight with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office was over.
The other big implication is this: the DA’s office has some serious thinking to do on whether to pursue the jury trials, or just flat out dismiss them. One big factor will be whether the cost of the trials can be justified—court-appointed lawyers are expensive, after all, and a large number of occupiers are now entitled to them. The DA is expected to decide early next week.
Of course, not all occupiers will get jury trials. Albrecht’s decision does not apply to defendants originally arrested on charges—like interfering with a police officer—that also were reduced to violations. These cases will proceed without jury trials. (At one point, these cases were going to get trials under a previous ruling. However the DA responded to that ruling by dropping most of these charges for violations that didn’t qualify for juries or legal counsel. And now, occupiers with these charges don’t fall under the new appellate court ruling). That means cases like the one against Liz Nichols—the infamously pepper-sprayed occupier—won’t change. So what happens next?
Albrecht, the deputy district attorney prosecuting the cases, and Occupy’s legal brain trust will meet next Monday, October 22, to decide.
thank you for caring nathan gilles. and denis therialt. noon. october 15. 2012. someday cover as story idea, retribution, fear of retaliation, harvesting customers for the courthouse by face, occupy as if a gang to quell, and perhaps leah laplant is she really deserving to be locked up right now. from michellemundt at live dot com 20121015
That was almost a coherent thought, michelle. Keep it up!
I’m betting they drop most or all of the cases rather than do jury trials.
I want to hear more about the face harvesting!
Like this better than having DHS FPS “police” aim foreign made weapons at me 🙂
This reminds me, everyone should read “Whitney v California” by Brandeis. Here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist…
(it gets good about 1/4 of the way through)
“[The founders] believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
@fidelity_axiom,
Since we’re quoting Cornell Law School’s SCOTUS site, how about we look at this one too:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0468_0288_ZS.html
In 1982, the National Park Service issued a permit to respondent Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) to conduct a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall, which are National Parks in the heart of Washington, D.C. The purpose of the demonstration was to call attention to the plight of the homeless, and the permit authorized the erection of two symbolic tent cities. However, the Park Service, relying on its regulations — particularly one that permits “camping” (defined as including sleeping activities) only in designated campgrounds, no campgrounds having ever been designated in Lafayette Park or the Mall — denied CCNV’s request that demonstrators be permitted to sleep in the symbolic tents. CCNV and the individual respondents then filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, that application of the regulations to prevent sleeping in the tents violated the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Park Service, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The challenged application of the Park Service regulations does not violate the First Amendment. Pp. 293-299.
Lest we forget:
October 29th 2011
(Edited from the Declaration of Occupation of New York City)
As one people formerly divided by the color of our skin,
gender, sexual orientation, religion or non-theism, political party and cultural background, we acknowledge the reality: That there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and those of our brethren; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people and the earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
To the people of the world,
We, the Portland General Assembly occupying Jamison Square in the pearl district, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all the resources at our disposal. Join us MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!
no sólo aquí en Argentina hay ocupas…. Fuerza Yanquis!!!!!
@Daniel Keller – That is an interesting case law precedent for the Occupy folks. I’ve always supported the legality of what Occupy was doing, as any half-brain should be able to look at the Occupy encampments around the country and easily define that as “peacefully assemble” as listed in the First Amendment.
The reason I linked to case that I did is because Justice Brandeis explains when the right to assemble should be violated, and it’s pretty reasonable, “Only an emergency can justify repression.” So, if you dig through the emergencies offered, you see a similar smear campaign nationwide. It was the Conference of Mayors that conspired to destroy Occupy, and they knew they had to create a narrative of a great emergency. So the emergencies offered up were simple: There was a rape, there was a theft, there was drunk people, people were getting sick, and my favorite: the grass was being destroyed. These were not just offered up in Portland, but all around the country. Zuccotti had to be cleared so the concrete could be power-washed. Only by offering these “emergencies” did the repression make sense, and the emergencies offered were clearly bullshit.