> 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.
"Constitution doesn't apply", my ass.