[NYFriend]

Not exactly. The DA's been looking to deal. That fell through, so he's been talking about reducing the charges to a level that no longer warrants a jury trial under the law. He's afraif a jury will let Dixon walk, but thinks a judge will sentence him.

In regards to breaking a law that's unjust, everyone today (+/-), agrees that Rosa Parks did the right thing by violating the give up your bus seat law. Never mind that she was a plant, and Dixon was actually protecing his family. Sometimes someone has to break an unjust law. (In some cases, I wish I had the certainty and courage to do so.) Then it's up to our courts to decide if the law is right or the individula is right. Sometimes the court can't make that call and they flip it back to the legislature. The point is, someone has to test it. If they are wrong, they are stuck.

[algol]

he's been talking about reducing the charges to a level that no longer warrants a jury trial under the law. He's afraif a jury will let Dixon walk, but thinks a judge will sentence him.

Isn't Dixon entitled to demand a trial by jury, no matter how trivial the case? I suppose a judge could deny that request, but that looks like automatic grounds for appeal.

(Just asking.)