Posted on 04/14/2005 11:00:40 PM PDT by RWR8189
usuke Joshua Banno is a college student from Arizona marooned in Manhattan. In his old life, he would be feeding his two chickens, riding his bike and working in the maintenance department of the student union. He would also be graduating next month.
Instead, Mr. Banno is answering phones at a Midtown restaurant, Blockhead's Burritos, to help pay legal expenses. He has fallen a semester behind at Prescott College in Tucson, and is learning more about criminal law than he ever cared to know.
The change in Mr. Banno's life dates from August, when he traveled by bus to New York City to join crowds of protesters at the Republican National Convention.
He was arrested on Aug. 29 and was charged with assault and reckless endangerment, accused of igniting a papier-mâché dragon. For months he has proclaimed his innocence, saying that in the chaos of the crowd, the police just picked the wrong person. Last week, prosecutors seemed to agree, after concluding that a police officer had misidentified Mr. Banno.
Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney's office said the case would probably be dismissed.
Behind the story of Mr. Banno's legal travails, there is a personal one. It is a tale of the obstacles and financial hardships faced by an ordinary family in a case that appears likely to be dismissed, like so many others from convention week. As of last month, about 80 percent of the convention arrests had been dismissed, adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, or ended in acquittals, according to statistics from the district attorney's office.
Beyond the immediate problem of the charges, which could have brought Mr. Banno a prison term of up to seven years, money was a serious concern. His lawyer, Sabrina Shroff, took the case for a very low fee, but it would still cost thousands of dollars to take to trial.
For Mr. Banno's mother, Betty Jo Banno, who learned of his arrest while watching television at home in Prescott, Ariz., the amount of her son's bail, $200,000, came as an early shock.
"I just couldn't believe it; I thought it couldn't be real," she said, sitting on a couch in a Midtown apartment that she sublet for herself, her son and out-of-towners involved in the case. "The first thing I thought was, 'I don't have $200,000.' "
"They said, 'What do you have?' and I said, 'I can use my house as collateral.' "
Mr. Banno's friends mobilized for his defense. They held a potluck party in Tucson. One friend started a Web site. Another sold T-shirts. His college put out a jar for donations. A friend, Toby Fraser, watched dozens of hours of videotape at the National Lawyers Guild, an advocacy group for change in political and economic matters.
Mr. Banno spent six days in jail, avoiding the meat dishes and eating canned string beans, mashed potatoes and grits. He was not allowed to make long-distance phone calls, so Ms. Shroff arranged a conference call so he and his mother could talk.
Eventually, Mr. Banno's bail was reduced to $10,000. Mrs. Banno wiped out nearly half her savings to send the bail money. As the case wound its way through the legal system, Mr. Banno's trial was delayed five times, Ms. Shroff said. Mrs. Banno bought plane tickets for herself, Ms. Shroff, Mr. Fraser and four witnesses.
In January, Mrs. Banno took a leave from her job to help with the trial preparations. She took out a $55,000 home equity loan to cover her family's living expenses. In all, she said, she has spent about $30,000 on the case.
"I used to feel pretty free going out to eat and taking a trip to visit my mom in Hawaii," Mrs. Banno said. "All of that has pretty much stopped."
The ordeal has created plenty of tension for Mr. Banno's extended family in Japan. His father, who is Japanese and works in Fukuoka as a yoga teacher, was told by his relatives that his son's arrest had shamed them. Mrs. Banno has not heard from her in-laws since then.
After months of pressing the case for Mr. Banno's innocence, a big break came late last month, when Ms. Shroff and Mr. Fraser tracked down time-sequence photographs taken by a Daily News photographer that showed Mr. Banno was far from where the fire began. A week later, prosecutors stated in court that the officer had misidentified Mr. Banno, and yesterday a spokeswoman said that the case would probably be dropped.
For Mrs. Banno, it was not a moment too soon.
"I want our calm life back," she said. "I can't wait to go home."
Oh.....so, since at one point in this "rally", he wasn't doing anything? Well, the man is obviously a saint. What does this prove? All this paragraph tells me is this jerk was going to get off on a technicality, and the DA dropped the charges. So, since he was behaving at some point.....he couldn't have done it?? Wake up!
I think the technician was deliberately directed to do what he/she did by somebody who had malicious intentions. Believe me, if I ever got arrested I would "lawyer up" before I was even through hearing about my "Miranda rights".
Freedom of expression, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is under assault in this country.
The one-party system that runs this country has done a brilliant propaganda job at exploting the conservative-liberal divide in this country, and using it to divide and conquer. (I would argue that the *real* divison is along the lines of statist vs. individual). The powers that be have done a really effective job of implementing their statist agenda, regardless of whether a "liberal" or "conservative" is in power.
You have been watching too much Democracy Now. Worse, you are believing the crap they are putting out.
The facts:
19% of the cases are being prosecuted.
27% of the cases dropped for lack of evidence.
64% of the cases were plead "Adjudication Withheld" pending six months good behavior. (You admit you are guilty but the governement is not going to prosecute if you are a good boy for six months. You still have a criminal record.)
Civil disobediance lovers want to put the 64% + 27% together to get the fiction of 91%.
And I have a problem with holding person A responsible for the actions of person B. You apparently do not.
No, but I do have a problem with person A protecting person B by not naming or identifying him.
I have a problem with American citizens being arrested and harassed for crimes they didn't commit. You apparently don't.
I believe that one of the terrorists we have arrested was planning to blow up major cities, and is an American citizen. He didn't do anything...should we set him free? He only wants to kill us....I guess until he succeeds, we should allow him to try. And, I'm pretty sure that John Lindh is an American citizen, he was just hanging out in Afghanistan on the battlefield....but I'm sure he didn't do anything either. Being an American citizen should not mean you can do whatever the hell you want.
"You need to read the thread that was posted here about how they are having to drop 90% of the charges because of the NKVD, I mean NYPD, lying.
Of course, none of the cops will get charged with anything."
Say it isn't so!!!!! Not in the LIBERAL town of New York?????
If that is indeed the case, the individual who gave that direction likely committed multiple state crimes in doing so.
Not only that, but it is also a federal felony to conspire to deprive someone of their Rights under color of law.
Do you have a different copy of the Constitution? Can you tell me where "freedom of expression" is written? It must be under the same heading as "separation of church and state"...
How many? Were they wearing all black clothing?
I personally saw a group of cops standing in a street corner in full riot gear allowing the mob to destroy at will
That is consistent with what I saw in the documentary film.
You're nuts. Comparing protestors to murderers?
He didn't do anything...should we set him free?
If he has committed no crime, then YES! Ever hear of habeas corpus
I'm pretty cynical about the police, but not in regards to protest arrests. I've had friends who loved to go to protests. They admitted that leftie protests are one giant party.... LOTS of drugs and drinking. What is a miracle is that so few were arrested.
What does that have to do with it? You used Seattle as an example of a peaceful protest. Are you now insinuating that those in "black clothing" were not protestors, but secret government agents? Right.....
This particular "peaceful" rock throwing "protestor" was alone.
The vandals, however, moved around in large groups. The police defended themselves and no more until far to late thanks to political correctness run amok in the far leftwing Seattle mayoral office.
The "peaceful protestors" decided to attack the WTO itself and when that failed they tried to destroy as much of the city as possible. Smash world capitalism in the form of your local McDs.
People should have been facing felony assault charges. Instead the mayor came under assault for the little (and too late) that he allowed the police to do.
Not only do you not understand habeas corpus, you don't even understand the Constitution or the principles this country was founded on.
The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything. It merely enumerates certain Rights that we have. Just because something isn't listed there, doesn't mean we don't have that Right. (See the 9th amendment)
For example, there is no enumerated Right to travel, or to walk down the street without being mugged, or even to breathe! Yet, we all have these Rights.
Like so many Americans, you lack a fundamental understanding of what the principles on which this country was founded.
You need to read more. I suggest starting with the Declaration of Independence. Then read the Constitution. Do some research on a fellow named John Peter Zenger. Then read "Origins of the Bill of Rights" by Levy. Read the early arguments of James Otis. And so on.
I never equated protestors to terrorists. You asked "Or is now okay to arrest Americans and try them for "things they might do"?"
And, I can then only assume, that had the 9/11 terrorists been stopped, that you would be asking for their release. Because, they were merely planning to blow people up, but hadn't actually done anything yet. I suggest you actually read posts before responding with ridiculous comments.
They owe him nothing. he willingly participated in a protest that was being advertised as one which could be violent. The professional protesters were all there, and had crippled horses and injured officers in the past. He knew the risks.
Yes, you have a right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately it was not a peaceful protest, was it.
The legal system worked, (or maybe he came up with a good lie to get off) and so the charges will be dropped. (unless something doesn't pass the sniff test) He isn't owed anything. Those expenses his mother racked up were unnecessary.
The moral of the story here is "don't go looking for trouble, you just might find it".
"Like so many Americans, you lack a fundamental understanding of what the principles on which this country was founded."
Being pompous will not help your viewpoint. Just an observation.
Interesting little thread. :-)
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.