Click this damn logo to go to the home page of

Parading without a Permit

From: Tommy Jacob Eden

Date: Apr 29, 1996

Subject: Re: parading w/o a permit

 

Joshu@ DeVries wrote:

 

> Does someone (Tommy?) remember how it was we beat the "parading" rap with

> CM? Didn't it have something to do with requiring floats or animals or

> something? I am about to fight the same charge for the Mumia demo last

> summer.

 

Do *I* remember how we argued our cases? How could I forget?? :)

 

Every individual used his/her own strategy--some worked and some didn't. The best short-run strategy was to have a lawyer. It often seemed that, as soon as a defendant brought a lawyer into the courtroom with him/her, the prosecutors moved to dismiss the charges. The one lawyer who actually did have a trial (Jeremy's lawyer, Peggy Kelley) thoroughly trounced the prosecution in the courtroom! The trial was over EVEN BEFORE the lawyers could make their closing arguments. Every time the cops used the word "parade," Peggy objected on the grounds that they had not established that a parade had existed. She asked the cops whether they had counted the number of people gathered together. They hadn't, but they claimed that they were trained to estimate the size of a crowd. She asked them whether they had personally seen any violations of traffic laws. They explained that they knew there were violations, because they had seen other officers pulling people over. In fact, they hadn't seen any violations, because, if they had, they themselves would have given tickets to the alleged violators. She asked one of the cops how he could determine whether a person on a bicycle was a parade participant. He said that, if they were part of the "protest group," then they were participating in the parade, but if they were just riding home from work, then they weren't considered participants.

 

"But how could you distinguish people who were participants from people who were 'just riding home from work,' unless you stopped them to ask them?" the clever lawyer asked the clueless cop.

 

"I wouldn't know how to answer that," the foolish officer replied.

 

"Your Honor," the brilliant attorney requested of the presiding judge, "could you require the witness to answer the question?"

 

"Sir, you'll have to answer the question," said the judge.

 

The stupid cop asked the extraordinarily astute attorney to repeat the question, which she did. He then replied, "I would--" [long pause, and then]--"I don't know."

 

*****************************************************************

 

Most of the trials were not nearly as dramatic. Scott, acting as his own attorney, did everything he could to avoid irritating the judge. He brought in one witness, who gave a reasonable account to offset the evidence from the prosecution, including the testimony of two police officers. Scott was fined $150, and he didn't appeal his case.

 

In my case, I relied very heavily upon constitutional arguments. My case is still on appeal, but it could have the most far-reaching consequences, if I win. The only way I will let the judge find me not guilty is by finding the parade ordinance unconstitutional. It's an expensive way to get justice, but the tactic could have an impact on parade ordinances throughout the entire country. Simply getting the transcript will cost me $300, but I think it's worth the cost, if it will help everyone who is affected by this unconstitutional ordinance and others like it all across the country.

 

The most common, and the easiest, defense is simply to argue that the prosecution has failed to prove that a parade existed, because they failed to prove that any *traffic laws* were violated. Usually, they would try to prove that the defendant himself or herself violated some traffic law.

 

In fact, I did ask the lieutenant whether he had seen any floats or large balloons, any animals, etc., but that was more for dramatic effect than for legal purposes, and the judge knew that as well as I did (such questions are valid, however, because of the wording of the parade ordinance, and they could have a major impact upon a jury--don't be shy about saying that you are using the words by which a parade is defined, according to the parade ordinance). It is useful to make a mockery of the way the police abuse their powers.

 

In your case, Joshu@, you presented clear, convincing evidence that the maneuver you made, and upon which the prosecution based its argument that traffic laws were violated, was not only a perfectly legal action, but, furthermore, that, if it were considered unlawful, then there could be no lawful way for bicyclists to reach the bicycle lane--a thoroughly convincing argument.