Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jailed freelance videographer loses another bid for release {Josh Wolf still in contempt}
AP via CoCoTimes ^ | 1/31/7

Posted on 01/31/2007 7:58:31 AM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO - A freelance videographer who's been imprisoned for five months for refusing to turn over his footage of a 2005 protest lost another bid for release.

Joshua Wolf, 24, was held in contempt of court after being subpoenaed by a San Francisco federal grand jury investigating a G-8 summit protest where anarchists were suspected of vandalizing a police car and one city officer suffered a fractured skull. Wolf refused to hand over 30 minutes of unpublished footage of the protest and was ordered jailed in August.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge William Alsup have ruled that 1972 Supreme Court precedent requires everyone, including journalists, to appear before grand juries if they have been summoned.

He could remain jailed until July, when the grand jury that subpoenaed him expires.

Wolf recently asked Alsup again to release him, arguing that imprisonment would never have its intended effect of coercing him into relinquishing the tape and that it had crossed the line into criminal punishment. He also noted that authorities dropped charges this month against the only suspect in the police car vandalism.

The judge, however, denied release Tuesday, citing a prosecutor's statement that Wolf's lawyer, Martin Garbus, had offered to turn over the tape in exchange for a promise that Wolf would not have to identify anyone who appeared on it.

"This reveals a realistic possibility that Mr. Wolf's confinement may be having its coercive effect," Alsup said.

But Garbus said in a court filing Tuesday that prosecutors misrepresented his proposal, which was only made to gauge their interest in such a deal. Garbus said that Wolf never agreed to it and that Wolf has remained unwilling to testify or release the tape.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; US: California; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: contemptofcourt; rotinjail; terrorsupporter

1 posted on 01/31/2007 7:58:33 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

He's a creep. No sympathy. May he rot behind bars.


2 posted on 01/31/2007 8:02:15 AM PST by laweeks (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I hope Bubba the love sponge visits him often.


3 posted on 01/31/2007 8:04:13 AM PST by CholeraJoe (Spork weasels ain't afraid of nuthin' but running out of sardines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe

So does Josh.


4 posted on 01/31/2007 8:05:43 AM PST by SmithL (si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"Wolf recently asked Alsup again to release him, arguing that imprisonment would never have its intended effect"

What idiot lawyer did he have trying this defence? Imagine if all criminals said "sending me to jail won't help me stop committing crimes so I should be released.

Or maybe he was just counting on the liberal 9th circus to free a 'fellow traveler'

5 posted on 01/31/2007 8:05:58 AM PST by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

The lawyer is basically saying that prison does not rehabilitate. This is an old liberal argument, nothing new here.


6 posted on 01/31/2007 8:09:17 AM PST by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
But Garbus said in a court filing Tuesday that prosecutors misrepresented his proposal, which was only made to gauge their interest in such a deal.

IOW, Mr Garbus was the one who misrepresented his own proposal.
7 posted on 01/31/2007 8:13:13 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

He's guilty of more than contempt, he's willfully obstructing justice.. charge him.

This guys no martyr, but the commies will turn him into one I am sure.


8 posted on 01/31/2007 8:21:14 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
"Imagine if all criminals said "sending me to jail won't help me stop committing crimes so I should be released."

Same thought went through my mind.

I will admit to being somewhat conflicted on this issue: sure I'd love to get some justice for the damage done, particularly for the injured cop; BUT, where do we draw the line at allowing "the press" (very loosely defined) to do their job without being forced to do things by the gov't? Even if we consider Josh a non-press member (aka: avg Joe Citizen) who just happened to film something of interest to the gov't, should he be REQUIRED by big gov't to turn it over?

Josh must have seen something pretty serious on that tape to be willing to do time for it. Since someone was hurt, he should have turned the tape over and gone on with his life.
9 posted on 01/31/2007 8:21:15 AM PST by mad puppy ( 2007 is going to be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
What idiot lawyer did he have trying this defence?

No kidding. How hard can it really be to pass the bar exam?

10 posted on 01/31/2007 8:33:58 AM PST by nina0113 (And yet JohnJohn flunked it twice....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy
Josh must have seen something pretty serious on that tape to be willing to do time for it.

Agreed.

Since someone was hurt, he should have turned the tape over and gone on with his life.

Apparently since it was a COP getting his head beat in, ol' Joshie thinks that's pretty cool, and the guy who did it should walk.

Let him rot.

11 posted on 01/31/2007 8:36:05 AM PST by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
... where anarchists were suspected of vandalizing a police car and one city officer suffered a fractured skull.

Let him rot. He has no right to protect possibly criminal behavior.

12 posted on 01/31/2007 8:40:53 AM PST by thegreatbeast (Avenge Curt Weldon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad puppy
I see the difference here being that he had a video record of a public event that would be useful in determinign facts.

No freedom of speech issue here at all- this was not a hidden source seeking the protection of secrecy, he simply had a film record of PUBLIC event.

13 posted on 01/31/2007 8:47:33 AM PST by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Uhh, this guy isn't in jail for criminal offenses. He just tweaked some judge and is now finding out about the powers of judges to hold people in contempt of court. Google H. Beatty Chadwick to see what kind of powers are bestowed upon the Kings in black robes.


14 posted on 01/31/2007 9:08:32 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
"No freedom of speech issue here at all-"

Agreed. My angle was more about a free-press being allowed to operate without gov't intrusions. However, if the comments from some of the Freepers about this Josh guy are accurate, he is a trouble making punk and should probably be in jail anyway. Might do him some good in the long run. Of course, I have to be careful to not let my disgust with the MSM spill over to others.
15 posted on 01/31/2007 9:36:55 AM PST by mad puppy ( 2007 is going to be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

There are two types of contempt; "criminal contempt" and "civil contempt."

In this case, it is civil contempt, i.e., the imprisonment is intended to force compliance with a court's order. As soon as he complies, he is out of jail. Thus, the common saying that "he has the keys to the jailhouse door in his pocket." Judith Miller was jailed on the same theory for failing to testify about her conversations with various sources. When she agreed to testify, she was immediately set free.

Criminal contempt is not to force compliance but rather to punish contemptuous behavior. Hence it carries a specific term in jail, or fine or whatever.

In this case, the lawyer's argument is a good one, as the courts have said that once it becomes clear that someone jailed to force compliance will not comply, no matter how long they are locked up, the logic behind the jailing is no longer valid and hence he must be released.

Jack


16 posted on 01/31/2007 12:03:40 PM PST by JackOfVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nina0113

He may be afraid the "anarchists" will kill him if he rats them out.


17 posted on 01/31/2007 12:10:09 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JackOfVA

Unless your name is H. Beatty Chadwick and then you can end up in jail for 12 years and counting on a civil contempt charge. He's still in jail.


18 posted on 01/31/2007 10:16:39 PM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson