Skip to comments.
6 protesters acquitted of rioting, related charges stemming from Inauguration Day
WTOP News [Washington DC] ^
| December 21, 2017 2:30 pm
| Amanda Iacone and Megan Cloherty
Posted on 12/21/2017 12:03:01 PM PST by COBOL2Java
WASHINGTON Six protesters cleared of all charges related to riots that broke out on Inauguration Day were jubilant and declared a victory for lawful dissent after a jury found them not guilty Thursday following a monthlong trial.
People wont be afraid to show up and go protest and get in the streets and not be worried that theyll get mass arrested like we did, said Michelle Macchio, one of the six acquitted defendants. This sets a really strong precedent that thats not ok and you cant criminalize dissent.
The jury deliberated for a week before delivering its verdict in D.C. Superior Court.
Defendants described their reaction in the courtroom as relief, followed by hugging and sobbing.
This isnt just about the six of us. This about the other 188 people that are left to go.
All we can do is hope that these acquittals really set the stage for them to also get acquittals, Macchio said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: dc; michellemacchio; radicalleft; rentamob; trumpinaurural
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: ex91B10
Hang this judge???????
“”after a jury found them not guilty Thursday following a month long trial.””
To: WayneS
I was under the impression one could. Thx for the info.
42
posted on
12/22/2017 5:16:01 AM PST
by
ex91B10
To: ex91B10
A judge can nullify a guilty verdict, but once a not guilty verdict then the restriction on double jeopardy (enshrined in the 5th Amendment) prevents the judge from doing anything other than releasing the defendant.
The only exception is the very rare circumstance in which jury tampering or "fixing" of a jury can be proved - and even then it does not guarantee prosecutors a second "bite at the apple".
43
posted on
12/22/2017 5:42:06 AM PST
by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
To: Max Tactical
Whether he is or is not an Obamabot, the prosecutor failed to make the case against these particular defendants, and in my opinion acquittal was the only just outcome.
In this case, I think the jury did its job.
44
posted on
12/22/2017 5:46:05 AM PST
by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
To: WayneS
Did the prosecutor fail, or was this the outcome the DA’s office wanted all along?
45
posted on
12/22/2017 5:52:45 AM PST
by
mewzilla
(Was Obama surveilling John Roberts? Might explain a lot.)
Comment #46 Removed by Moderator
To: COBOL2Java
"... Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz threw out each defendants inciting a riot charge a felony that carried a maximum 10-year sentence.
Leibovitz concluded that no reasonable juror could find that the prosecution proved the six defendants encouraged others to riot.
The protesters faced up to six months for the misdemeanor rioting charges and up to 10 years behind bars for each felony destruction of property charge .... "
IMPEACH and REPLACE Superior Court
Judge Lynn Leibovitz for PREDUJICE AND INCOMPETENCE !
47
posted on
12/22/2017 5:56:36 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: mewzilla
As it relates to the verdict, it makes no real difference WHY the case was poorly prosecuted. My point was that the
jury did nothing wrong.
Many who have posted about this story have criticized the jury, and I think that criticism is unfair in this case.
48
posted on
12/22/2017 6:00:03 AM PST
by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
To: WayneS
It relates to the verdict in that if the DA’s office was deteruined to lose the case, the verdict was predictable. And you’re right, no fault of the jury. The jury was used.
49
posted on
12/22/2017 6:03:14 AM PST
by
mewzilla
(Was Obama surveilling John Roberts? Might explain a lot.)
To: Yosemitest
IMPEACH and REPLACE Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz for PREDUJICE AND INCOMPETENCE ! I disagree. It's pretty clear that the prosecutor did not make the case against these particular defendants. That is NOT the judge's fault.
Take a look at Post #36, above for details on the prosecutors failures.
We may agree that these people are [most likely] guilty of rioting, but it is up to the prosecutor to present enough evidence to make the case.
50
posted on
12/22/2017 6:06:00 AM PST
by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
To: Max Tactical
Stating in closing statements that criminal charges did NOT require "beyond reasonable doubt", no matter what the law said, and being contradicted publicly by the judge on the matter. Any prosecutor who makes that statement in open court should be disbarred.
51
posted on
12/22/2017 6:07:34 AM PST
by
WayneS
(An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
Comment #52 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson