> Hi! This is David Bryant again, with a detailed description of what
> happened in Denver county courtroom 151P this morning, Thursday, May 16.
>
_____________________________________________________________________
> > Rick's trial re-commenced in Denver county court this morning.
> Judge Robert L. Patterson entered the courtroom at 8:20 am,
> and proceeded to discuss jury instructions with the attornies.
>
> Patterson proposed two forms of a general verdict (guilty,
> and not guilty, the standard forms) and 11 separate jury
> instructions (from the Colorado rules of criminal procedure).
> Paul Grant proposed four additional jury instructions for
> the defense. The city attorney objected to all of Paul's
> proposals.
>
> The city attorney stated that the standard jury instructions
> were good enough for him. Paul Grant proceeded to criticize
> several aspects of the standard jury instructions. The word
> "crime" is inaccurate, and should be modified to say
> "offense." In law, a violation of a municipal ordinance is
> not a crime -- it is an offense. The language used in the
> jury instructions should be accurate.
>
> Paul Grant next objected to several of the standard jury
> instructions which tell the members of the jury that they
> "will" do something, or that they "shall" do something, or
> that they "must" do something. He pointed out that in a
> trial by jury, the jury has the last word, and that each
> juror's decision must be given freely, without coercion.
> For the court to tell them that they "must" follow the
> law as the judge explains it to them is to deny the
> defendant's right to be tried by a jury.
>
> Patterson interjected at this point, and began to lecture
> Paul on various points of case law. Paul held his ground
> pretty well, citing precedents to support points of view
> antagonistic to the viewpoint Patterson was adopting. The
> judge grew more bombastic ... he was clearly asserting
> his position as the "controlling legal authority" in the
> courtroom.
>
> Paul next presented arguments to support his additional
> jury instructions. One of these was an alternative to the
> standard instruction on the elements of an offense, the
> nature of reasonable doubt, and the meaning of "culpable
> mental state" (aka "mens rea"). The second one dealt with
> the fact that Rick's act of civil disobedience was a form
> of political speech, and that the jury should not convict
> him just because they don't agree with his point of
> view.
>
> Paul then presented two affirmative defenses to the court,
> in the form of jury instructions. First, this was an act
> of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents
> the government from punishing Rick for speech. Second,
> the Second Amendment and the constitution of Colorado,
> Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick's right to
> keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued
> forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which
> is controlling in this case.
>
> To Paul's argument about People vs. Ford, Patterson replied
> that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed
> the constitution of Colorado, are not applicable within
> the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule
> city. Patterson then proceeded to reject all of Paul Grant's
> motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the
> bailiff went to get the jury.
>
> The jury showed up about 9:00. Closing arguments were
> brief. The city attorney recited the facts of the case
> and called on the jury to convict Rick because Rick had
> no real _need_ to defend himself that day in the park.
>
> Paul Grant reminded the jury of their important role in
> our system of justice. He spoke briefly of the history
> of trial by jury. He told them they are the defenders
> of liberty. He laid particular emphasis on the fact that
> the city did not meet their burden of proof on the issue
> of a culpable mental state. Rick was not there with any
> criminal intent. Rick was there to assert his rights,
> and to defend the rights of all the citizens of Colorado.
>
> The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 am. During the
> recess, I asked the city attorney to clarify what Judge
> Patterson had said about the inapplicability of Supreme
> Court precedent and the Colorado constitution when he
> ignored Paul's argument based on a state Supreme Court
> decision.
>
> "As I understand it, Judge Patterson just said that
> because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights and the
> constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect
> any of my rights from the government of Denver." I
> said. "Is that your understanding, also? Is the city
> government free to deny all the rights secured to me
> by the Constitution of the U.S., and the constitution
> of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?"
>
> "Yes," he said. "The Constitution has no force or effect
> in Denver, because this is a home rule city."
>
> I told him, politely, that this is an absolute abomination.
> I am a taxpayer. I pay you thousands of dollars every year
> to protect my rights. And there you are, telling me that
> I have no rights at all. I am outraged.
>
> I will do everything I can to change that, I said. I will
> take this issue (about "home rule") directly to the voters
> of Denver. I will get your position reversed, by the people.
>
> Fine, he replied. When the law is changed, I will enforce
> the new law, as written. But as things stand right now,
> the Constitution has no force or effect in this city. And
> it's been that way since 1906.
>
> The jury finally came back in at 10:20 am. They had been
> gone about an hour. Their verdict -- guilty -- was read.
> Paul Grant asked the court to poll the half-jury. Each
> one of the six declared Rick guilty. The judge thanked
> them for their service, read them the final standard
> instruction about discussing the case with others, if
> they want to, and dismissed them.
>
> Paul Grant moved for immediate sentencing. Patterson denied
> that motion. After some deliberation, sentencing was set
> for the 25th of July, and court was adjourned.
>
> So that's where Rick's case stands now. He has been
> convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly
> weapon, and he's free on bail until the court imposes
> a sentence on July 25th.
I agree with you that the rights outlined in the BOR (and many not enumerated) pre-existed before the U.S. Constitution - and before the State Constitutions. However, I disagree that the U.S. Constitution states that it is the Federal Government's job to monitor, limit, and restrict the State Governments to ensure they are not violating anyone's rights. The U.S. Constitution just plain doesn't give them that roll and, furthermore, it would lead to the problems we are having today wherein the states have lost all sovereignty.