Posted on 01/30/2023 3:07:50 PM PST by Magnatron
On Monday, pro-life activist Mark Houck was found not guilty of federal charges alleging he violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act over an incident outside an abortion clinic in Philadelphia in October 2021.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the FACE prohibits violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain or provide reproductive health services.
As Townhall reported, Houck, 48, was accused of shoving a Planned Parenthood abortion escort named Bruce Love in 2021. As a result, Houck was charged with two counts of violating the FACE Act over the alleged “attack of a patient escort.” Reportedly, Houck claimed that the pro-abortion volunteer was verbally harassing his 12-year-old son.
In September, Houck was arrested at his home in front of his wife and children.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
He probably should, because I bet the Federal government isn't done trying to punish Houck. Double-jeopardy means nothing to a group of people who have pissed on The Constitution.
+1
Good. Now he can sue the FBI and all other interested agencies.
Great news!
Praise the Lord!
Thank you Jesus for this miracle. I was praying this Christian man would be found innocent.
File the lawsuit and then we can learn what discovery might reveal about collusipn between Garland’s DOJ and the abortion industry.
That’s very good, but I wonder how much his acquittal cost him, emotionally and financially.
First off, it wasn't just Houck who "claimed" that the complainant said something to his young son. His son also testified to the foul language used by the complainant, and a priest who was at the abortion clinic testified to foul language used towards him by the complainant. What's more, other witnesses (including another "escort") testified that they heard the complainant yelling. The complainant denied every single thing (including the testimony of other witnesses).
Second, a juror was removed from the case for refusing to deliberate and an alternate juror was brought in. A not-guilty verdict was reached shortly thereafter. My guess (having experienced this before) is that was the single vote for conviction. A juror who refuses to deliberate has got ulterior motives.
But it looks like justice was done. Hopefully his attorneys will advise him on next steps.
....and they want to put the Feds in charge of “police reform”?
This is what the FBI considers important crime? They have to go our and harrass a jay walker.
Expect an appeal on this issue.
What they did to this man was vicious.
The government may not appeal a criminal jury verdict; it’s that nasty prohibition against double jeopardy thingy in the Constitution.
THANK GOD!!! NOW SUE THE PANTS OFF OF GARLAND!! I WiLL GLADLY PAY!
I’d bet it was a very minor incident from the get-go and this was primarily the FBI/Biden out to get a Pro-Lifer.
Appeal by whom?
Jeopardy does not apply where a mistrial is granted. Removal of a juror rather than granting a mistrial can be an appealable abuse of discretion.
“The successful appeal of a judgment of conviction, on any ground other than the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, Burks v. United States, ante, p. 1, poses no bar to further prosecution on the same charge.” United States v. Scott, 437 US 82, 90-91 (1978).
So here, the Prosecution may seek a new trial, without preclusion by double jeopardy if upon the introduction of evidence in the record that one juror was not deliberating the Prosecution moved for a mistrial. The grounds for appeal is abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial.
Just my two cents here. I do not know how the lawyers handled the unsettling of a juror and the seating of the alternate.
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.