BILL WHITE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY ON 4 COUNTS AND NOT GUILTY ON 3. DETAILS SOON
TRIAL UPDATE
DAY 8
uh...oh For Bill
FROM LAURENCE HAMMACK
HERE WE GO AGAIN...ACCORDING TO HAMMACK:
UPDATE: 12:30
THE CASE HAS GONE TO THE JURY. WE WILL POST THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AS SOON AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
FROM LAURENCE HAMMACK
uh...oh For Bill
FROM LAURENCE HAMMACK
A federal jury has indicated that it has questions about definition of a threat in the case of neo-Nazi William A. White.
"We are struggling with the aspect" of how a reasonable person should interpret a statement to be a threat, the foreman of the jury said after the panel was brought into the courtroom to ask a question.
The jury asked that the legal definition of a threat be read to them. After Judge James Turk read an instruction that took several minutes to recite, the jury asked for a written copy and resumed deliberations at 2:20.
Here are the jury's instructions for true threat definition:
For you to find the defendant guilty of each count, you must find that the communication it issued in that count contains true threat. The First Amendment does not protect true threat.
Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat, is determined in accordance with the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication.
The government does not have to prove that the defendant subjectively intended for the recipientsunderstand the communication as a threat. The speaker need not have intended to carry out the threat or have the ability to carry out the threat. The government does not have to prove that the person who received the threat was actually placed in fear of harm.
On the other hand, a statement does not become a true threat simply because it instills fear in the listener. You may, however, consider the reaction of any recipient in determining whether a reasonable person would consider the message a true threat.
A true threat is a serious expression of an intent to injure the person of another or to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or a group. A true threat is a serious threat as opposed to mere idle or careless talk, exaggeration or something said in a joking matter.
A true threat is more than mere political hyperbole or vehement caustic and unpleasantly sharp political attacks or crude offensive and abusive methods of stating political opposition. Identifying and providing personal information on a Web site standing alone, while it may be offensive or disturbing to those listed, is protected by the First Amendment. The mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment. To be a true threat the communication does not need to be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
You may find that a particular statement is a true threat if you find that the statement was made under such circumstances that an ordinary reasonable person who was familiar with the context of the communication would interpret it as an expression of an intent to injure the recipient or injure another person.
HERE WE GO AGAIN...ACCORDING TO HAMMACK:
A federal jury has indicated that it has questions about definition of a threat in the case of neo-Nazi William A. White.
"We are strugging with the aspect" of how a reasonable person should interpret a statement to be a threat, the foreman of the jury said after the panel was brought into the courtroom to ask a question.
The jury asked that the legal definition of a threat be read to them. After Judge James Turk read an instruction that took several minutes to recite, the jury asked for a written copy and resumed deliberations at 2:20.
UPDATE: 12:30
THE CASE HAS GONE TO THE JURY. WE WILL POST THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AS SOON AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
FROM LAURENCE HAMMACK
William A. White "is not on trial for using the word n----r. He is not on trial for his politcal views."
With those words, the attorney for the neo-Nazi leader implored a jury today to set his client's racist and inflamatory statements aside in a careful anaylsis of the law.
White made no direct threats against the seven people he badgered with e-mails and online postings, David Damico told the jury in his closing statements.
"Where is the evidence that Mr. White has ever done anything violent to anybody, ever?" Damico asked the jury.
"Be an American, even if it makes your blood boil, and acquit Bill White."
With those words to the jury, David Damico ended his closing statement on behalf of neo-Nazi leader William A. White, who is seeking the protection of the First Amendment against charges of making threats.
At 12:05, prosecutor John Richmond began making his rebuttal closing arguments.
That was the last sentence of the closing argument made by the prosecution this morning. After their usual mid-morning break, the jury will hear the argument made by the defense. They will then be presented with legal instructions read to them by Judge James Turk and sent into deliberations where they will decide Bill White's fate."Defendant White does not get the last word. You all do. And that word is guilty."
Sending a jury to decide a case on Friday is generally not a good idea. In this case, after 8 days of testimony, legal wranglings, and courtroom presentations, the jury is certainly looking forward to a weekend away. Additionally, that area is under a winter storm advisory - so you can bet they want to go home. How this will all shape up is anyone's guess at this point.
IF YOU HAVEN'T VOTED IN OUR POLL - IT'S ON THE RIGHT AT THE TOP!
FROM ROANOKE.COM:
ReplyDeleteWilliam A. White could learn as early as today whether the free speech rights of a racist agitator will make him a free man.
When the trial for White, a neo-Nazi leader charged with threatening people from across the country, resumes this morning in Roanoke's federal court, the jury is expected to hear closing arguments and then begin deliberating.
The question will be whether the words of White -- delivered by telephone, letter, e-mail and online, but never in person -- amounted to "true threats" as defined by federal law.
If the jury finds that White stopped short of making threats, the First Amendment will protect his practice of using the Internet to promote his white supremacist views while targeting those who offend them.
White, the self-proclaimed commander of the Roanoke-based American National Socialist Workers Party, has been held without bond almost continuously since he was arrested in October 2008.
Outspoken to an extreme in the past, White decided Thursday not to testify. His lawyers rested their case without calling a single witness, opting instead to challenge the strength of the government's case.
During five days of prosecution testimony, a newspaper columnist, a human rights lawyer, a bank employee, a university administrator, a small-town mayor and two tenants of an apartment complex all testified that White threatened them.
None of the targets had heard of White before he began to badger them by e-mail and online, often listing their home telephone numbers and addresses along with commentary that sometimes bordered on death wishes.
For example, after Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts wrote about black-on-white crime, White made his displeasure known by telling the writer in an e-mail: "You and your fellow black filth are quickly losing ground, and I look forward to the rapidly approaching day when whites once again rise up and slaughter and enslave your ugly race to the last man, woman and child.
"Itz coming."
In gripping testimony, Pitts and others described how White's comments -- combined with the knowledge that the rhetoric was disseminated along with their personal contact information -- left them fearful to this day.
Several witnesses struggled to control their emotions in describing their ordeals.
The jury remained stone-faced for much of the trial. The all-white panel, which includes one alternate, consists of nine men and four women who for the most part appear to be 40 or older.
The jury's racial makeup became an issue when White's trial began Dec. 9, with prosecutors challenging a defense move to exclude the only two black potential jurors. Judge James Turk ruled at the time that White's lawyers had valid, race-neutral reasons for striking both panelists.
After the prosecution rested its case Wednesday, the case took an unexpected turn Thursday morning.
The defense announced that it would rest without calling any witnesses after Turk took under advisement a motion to dismiss the charges on free speech grounds.
Just the day before, attorney David Damico had told the judge the defense would likely take a day to present its case -- possibly longer if White decided to testify.
That question seemed to linger unresolved until the last minute. At the request of his lawyers, Turk told White that he had an absolute right to either testify or remain silent, and that the choice was his to make.
After White and his attorneys huddled in the corner of the courtroom for a strategy session, the defense decided to rest.
I have read some closing arguements in the media but absolutely nothing, not one jot, of the defense closing arguements.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree the media in Roanoke has really dropped the ball in not giving the public a complete picture.
ReplyDeleteI am anxious to see the jury instructions.
ReplyDeleteWilliam A. White "is not on trial for using the word n----r. He is not on trial for his politcal views."
ReplyDeleteBut most rational people realize that is exactly why he is on trial.
It has everything to do with his choice of words and his views.
"White made no direct threats against the seven people he badgered with e-mails and online postings, David Damico told the jury in his closing statements. "
ReplyDeleteThis is what it really boils down to.
And if that is true then it is PROTECTED speech.
"I am anxious to see the jury instructions."
ReplyDeleteSo am I, but I doubt we will be allowed to view them until after the jury gives a verdict.
Roanoke.com has agreed to publish them as soon as they are proffered. Hopefully that will be after they are read.
ReplyDeleteWell...it is in the hands of the jury. I really hate that it went to them on Friday.
ReplyDeleteHammock deleted what I considered a very benign comment at her blog.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it Friday, but they are expecting a big snow storm there. I am sure the jury is very anxious to get home.
ReplyDeleteExactly. I really hoped they would get the case on Monday.
ReplyDeleteAs to Hammack deleting something, that surprises the hell out of me. They have been pretty tolerant over there. Check your email. They will usually tell you why they took something down.
"""Anonymous said...I have to agree the media in Roanoke has really dropped the ball in not giving the public a complete picture."""
ReplyDeleteNow the United States is all just finding out that the Roanoke Times is a radical leftist paper with an agenda.
Us Roanokers have known that for a long time.
Now it is snowing like crazy and I heard the roads are getting real bad so I better leave work early so I don't have to sleep here.
Here are the jury's instructions for true threat definition:
ReplyDelete"For you to find the defendant guilty of each count, you must find that the communication it issued in that count contains true threat. The First Amendment does not protect true threat.
Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat, is determined in accordance with the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication.
The government does not have to prove that the defendant subjectively intended for the recipients to understand the communication as a threat. The speaker need not have intended to carry out the threat or have the ability to carry out the threat. The government does not have to prove that the person who received the threat was actually placed in fear of harm.
On the other hand, a statement does not become a true threat simply because it instills fear in the listener. You may, however, consider the reaction of any recipient in determining whether a reasonable person would consider the message a true threat.
A true threat is a serious expression of an intent to injure the person of another or to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or a group. A true threat is a serious threat as opposed to mere idle or careless talk, exaggeration or something said in a joking matter.
A true threat is more than mere political hyperbole or vehement caustic and unpleasantly sharp political attacks or crude offensive and abusive methods of stating political opposition. Identifying and providing personal information on a Web site standing alone, while it may be offensive or disturbing to those listed, is protected by the First Amendment. The mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment. To be a true threat the communication does not need to be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
You may find that a particular statement is a true threat if you find that the statement was made under such circumstances that an ordinary reasonable person who was familiar with the context of the communication would interpret it as an expression of an intent to injure the recipient or injure another person."
Reported by L. Hammock
Some of those instructions aren't clear...bound to be some misunderstanding of them...some subtle contradictions in them.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Nikki can spot some of them.
"Web site standing alone, while it may be offensive or disturbing to those listed, is protected by the First Amendment."***Ok, that's pretty clear
ReplyDelete"... The mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment...."***OK, I understand that as well. Very good so far...
Then it sort of gets a little muddy:
"...To be a true threat the communication does not need to be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
***Say, what?
After this revelation I would predict at this point we are going to have a deadlocked jury, but I have been wrong before; after all, we are dealing with White Roanokers with an eagerness to prove they are NOT racist.
ReplyDeleteGUILTY ON FOUR COUNTS, ACQUITTED ON THREE. Just like I thought.
ReplyDeleteSo...it took a little over 3 hours?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the true threat definition is a little murky and leaves room for a lot of interpretation.
Now...let's see what counts he has been found guilty on.