Blogtown, PDX

Thursday, December 13, 2007

News Raging Grannies On Trial: Verdict Day

Posted by Matt Davis on Thu, Dec 13 at 10:35 AM

This is not a joke: A prosecuting attorney in the trial of Portland’s Raging Grannies has compared the protesters to suicide bombers, and the terrorists who crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York in September 2001.
GRANNIES: Al-fucking-Qaeda!!!

Here’s the Grannies’ most remarkable press release to date this morning:

A verdict is expected on Thursday, December 13 in the trial of five grandparents charged with “unlawfully and intentionally causing substantial inconvenience to the United States.” The case will be sent to the jury by Judge Richard Baldwin at 9 AM in room 716 of the Multnomah County Courthouse. The case stems from a silent vigil held by the Surge Protection Brigade, also know as the Seriously Pissed Off Grannies, on Good Friday, April 6, at the US Army and Marine recruiting center on NE Broadway.

Judge Baldwin will allow the jury to consider a “lesser of evils” defense after defendants testified that they felt compelled to take action to stop the imminent danger of death to Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. Between the time of the Good Friday vigil on April 6 and December 12 an additional 621 US Service members died in Iraq.

The jury will begin deliberations Thursday morning to decide if the grandparents who are defendants used tempera paint to send a symbolic message protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as claimed by Defense Attorney Lisa Ludwig, or if the powerful paint caused substantial inconvenience to the United States, and possibly worse as described by the District Attorney, Seth Steward. Steward called upon the jury to render a guilty verdict to “protect our troops.” He warned the jury of the danger of a not guilty verdict: “Think of some evils that could happen,” he said, “and why it is important for the line to be drawn here. On September 11 some people drove planes into a building to prove a point. The defendants say their conduct is necessary to avoid imminent danger because people dying in Iraq. That is the same thing suicide bombers say.”

What. The. Fuck.

In his closing argument for defendant Clyde Chamberlain, Attorney Robert Callahan, told the jury that the District Attorney was trying to turn a simple bottle of red tempera paint into “a weapon of mass inconvenience.” The water soluble poster paint was used to place red handprints on the window of the Army/Marine Recruiting office at 1371 NE Broadway on April 6, 2007. Chamberlain and the other defendants, Sara Graham, Ann Huntwork, Martha Odom and DeEtte Beghtol all testified that they were motivated by deep convictions and a sense that there was no other way to try to stop the war. “It is not to inconvenience the recruiters” said Martha Odom, “it’s a way to stand witness to folks who may not be thinking about this war, to people who know in their heart they’re not doing anything about it, to let everyone know there are people deeply, profoundly opposed to the Iraq war who carry grief and rage and want it to stop.”

We’ll let you know the verdict as soon as we do.

Permalink

Comments

give em the chair!

Posted by rex | December 13, 2007 10:40 AM

The Defendants were found NOT GUILTY of Criminal Mischief by the jury.

I was there for closing arguments and I felt almost every person in the room wince as Deputy DA Stewart compared the grannies to terroists. he said "what's next? A pipe bomb?" I was shocked. However, that Deputy DA is not known for winning trials or sweet legal skills so it wasn't much of a surprise. I figured he just embarrassed himself big time.

But then I thought about it some more. Maybe the DA's office had to charge it because the Carlyle Group (owners of the building), the military and police and local business folks are sick of the protests. But the DA isn't in it to make martyrs out of them or have the case go up on appeal or doesn't really even care so they send in someone who is going to lose the case. Or maybe Mr. Steewart is sympathetic and wanted to make sure that everyone knew he wasn't in it to win it so he pulled a Stephen Colbert move by being so outrageous the jury is forced to realize that the case is a waste of time. That's the only legitimate excuse for it. Otherwise the DA's office might want to reassign the poor guy out to Juvenile court or somewhere quiet and out of view.

Posted by Law Dude 1999 | December 13, 2007 11:22 AM

Give them a hand and write them a check. And remember the hysteria which sentenced Patrice Ford.

Law Dude, your second theory of the prosecution is fantastically cynical. Incompetence, from stem to stern, from the idiot who made the arrest to Mike Schrunk who ok'ed the trial, is the far more likely rational. Reassigning this trial DA to juvenile court would just screw things up for some poor kids. Don't do that.

Hey Matt, if it's hell to recruit cops and deputies, how hard is it to recruit JDs for the DA office? Crusty!

Posted by C | December 13, 2007 11:40 AM

Of course I am cynical C, I have worked on and witnessed too many criminal cases not to be cynical.

Many time deputy DAs faced with a terrible case will make a great offer to get the person to plea to some particular charge, or will simply dismiss the case if they think there isn't enough evidence to have a sure win if the person won't take the sweet deal.

What we call "Baby DAs" have less discretion though. They need to convince their higher ups that the case is a loser and get their permission to do it. Deputy DA Stewart and others in that office have had to take bad cases to trial because they can't get authority to dump the case. In this type of situation I have seen DA's phone trials in and simply show up to present their case without passion. Happens with shorttimers too. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a DA would sink his own case to some extent especially if he has nothing to really work with and the case never should have been charged.

But you are right in that the more likely explanation is incompetance. If he has simply gone in there and said:

"Speech is speech (and okay with me) but when you start putting ink or substances on your opponents stuff you've gone to far. You should no more tolerate this than you would your neighbor smearing dog feces on the hood of your car (it too washes right off) in an effort to convince you to paint your house differently. Because it is an act against your property not simply a speech activity."

If he had said that in the opening and then sat down he would have won. That kind of attitude of shrug, so they broke the law, too bad becaue they seem like dedicated and consicientious older folks is an opening and a closing that wins in this case. Rambling on about suicide bombers, streesing out about "disrespect to the military" and generally acting like this was the trial of the century is what lost the case for him.

An interesting thing for an intrepid reporter to try to get his or her hands on would be the jury trial report that Mr. Stewart has to send around to his colleagues. When Deputy DA's lose a case they have to send around an email explaining why they thought they lost and what went wrong in the trial. Do you think he blames anti-military elements in the jury pool or his supervisor who gave him such a stinker of a case for trial? I suggest the Mercury file a FOIA request for that memo.

While you are at it someone should try to find out how many cases (or counts) are charged by the DA, how many go to trial and what the win/loss rate is at trial. Given the fact that they decide on the charges, they have the power of the state of Oregon, the subpoena power and the ability to set the schedule of prosecution the DA shouldn't lose any cases at all. The fact that they lose trials so often (in misdemeanor cases especially) should give the citizens of portland and multnomah county pause when they consider hype about crime and drugs and the need for more police.

Posted by Law Dude 1999 | December 13, 2007 1:14 PM

Has anyone calculated how much this trial cost Multnomah County taxpayers? Schrunk should pay for it out of his own paycheck. Maybe that will deter legally unsound, politically driven prosecutions.

Posted by JD | December 13, 2007 1:21 PM

"Pulled a Stephen Colbert move by being so outrageous the jury is forced to realize that the case is a waste of time"

Smart theory. Probably not true though...that would show wit and insight, right?

Posted by Matt Davis | December 13, 2007 2:24 PM

Law Dude,
When I read that he said "thats what suicide bombers think" I thought 'dumbass!' when I heard that he made the 9/11 comment I thought 'Asshole!' but then when I read all the different ridiculous shit he said I thought 'wait, he can't be serious. Right?' I think your assesment is likely, I would love to hear the Dep. DA's candid thoughts on the case. I would feel bad if everyone thought he was an asshole for prosecuting this case against what he truly believes. If so, he did a great job of juxtaposing the grannies' arugument with the DA's absurd logic.

It reminds me of an episode of "Matlock" that I watched with my grandma when I was a kid: Ben is representing a woman he finds out is guilty and she wants him to work his silver-suit-wearing, court-room magic to get her off, meaning 'pin it on someone else' so he spins a scenario in court that accuses her best friend instead until she confesses to stop him.

ok, maybe it wasn't anything like that but I do miss watching "Matlock" with my grandma...

Posted by PR Walters | December 14, 2007 9:10 AM

Good insight from law dude. It seems pretty far-fetched that DDA Steward would throw his own case. Doing that would present an ethical issue, as well.

Posted by some guy | December 14, 2007 10:46 AM

Ethics, some guy? We're talking lawyers, here.

Posted by Matt Davis | December 14, 2007 2:16 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).