(I am posting an email from my peace activist friend JF on her recent experience in DC. This will warm your heart.)
I was arrested along with EB, DB, GC, SC, MK, and ET in the Hart Senate Office Building on Thursday March 29, 2007. We went there one hour after the Senate voted to continue to fund the war. We set up cardboard tombstones with pictures of soldiers and Iraqis who have died in the war since the Democrats took control of Congress in January. We began to read their names. After about 20 minutes, we were arrested by Capitol Police and charged with unlawful conduct.
We were arraigned on Friday morning after four of us spent the night in jail. We all pleaded not guilty and since the charge carries a possible six months in jail we requested a consolidated jury trial.
We began planning our trial, and as in the past, we were going to be representing ourselves as pro se defendants. MG graciously agreed to be our attorney advisor. He has had a great deal of experience in this kind of work. I was so grateful to have him on our team. We each had a role to play in the trial. I was to give the closing statement.
I flew from Madison, WI to Washington, DC on Sunday July 8. While sitting in the airport, I was thinking about what I was doing and feeling scared, but I reminded myself that if the most important thing is that I don’t go to jail, then I wouldn’t have gotten arrested in the first place. No – the most important thing is that I speak out when my government is doing something that is illegal and immoral. The seven of us, along with MG, met on Sunday night to go through the trial. He said that our primary defense is the tourist standard which is applied in unlawful conduct charges. What this means is that we were no more disruptive than an equal size group of tourists. The test is the impact of how disruptive we were, not the activities we were engaged in.
This would be my first experience with a jury trial and I was feeling very anxious. I certainly don’t continue to risk arrest and go to trial because I enjoy it. But with the suffering that continues in Iraq, and with families of US soldiers in Iraq, I feel called to continue to do this work.
Jury selection
Jury selection was set for Monday July 9. After a short appearance before Judge Craig Iscoe, we waited most of the day hoping that we would have the chance to get a jury selected. Much of the time was spent discussing our strategy and whether we wanted to agree to any of the government stipulations. We decided to reject all of the stipulations, but under MG’s advice agreed to keep them in mind in case it made sense later to accept some of them. It became a possibility that we would not select a jury until Tuesday, and if that date did not work out, we would move the trial to August. I was very disappointed about the possibility of having to return to DC in August for the trial.
Fortunately, at about 3:00 pm, we were called into the courtroom and told that the jury selection process would begin. GC was our representative, along with MG, going before the judge to question individual witnesses about their responses to the Voir Dire questions. One of the questions that the judge asked the potential jurors was: Do you have such strong feelings about the war in Iraq that it would be difficult for you to be fair in judging this case?
The majority of the potential jurors answered yes to this question. Each side was able to strike three potential jurors, but because of the large number of jurors answering yes to the above question, the prosecutor could not strike all of them and we ended up with a jury that was very sympathetic to our cause. Two potential jurors were dismissed by the prosecutor because they said that they had such strong feelings about the war and what we did that they absolutely would not have been able to convict us. One woman was dismissed, and as she stood to leave she held her hands together and bowed to us before she walked away. One of the final jurors was a reporter from Al Jazeera.
The jury was told that the government has to prove each and every element of the charge with each and every defendant. After the jury selection was complete, the court adjourned for the day.
We returned bright and early Tuesday morning, feeling anxious, but ready to begin the trial. We met in the cafeteria to continue our strategizing. Every spare minute throughout the next few days, we would meet either in the cafeteria in the morning and at noon, or in a witness room at the back of the courtroom to strategize. Bathroom breaks, phone calls, and eating were all put on hold as we continued to discuss our case.
Opening statements
We began Tuesday morning with opening statements. The prosecutor, Sean Farrell, was not a particularly eloquent speaker. He laid out what he thought were the facts of the case according to the police report. There were some clear discrepancies in the police report. Mr. Farrell said that we can’t just do what we want. He likened us to spoiled children who wanted to be arrested and ignored several warnings.
DB followed with his opening statement. Mr. Farrell objected many times during his opening and many of the objections were sustained. DB eloquently stated, “We came not to break the law, but to remind our Senate of its obligation to enforce the law.” He later stated, “When our congress, our president, and even our very courts turn their backs on the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, then it falls to the people of the land to demand justice.”
The government’s case
The government first called Officer Langley to the stand. She made our case for us when she said under cross examination by MK that we were not more disruptive than other groups of seven in the building. She also portrayed us as spoiled children who don’t obey. By the end of the questioning of the first witness it was time to adjourn for the day.
I was not able to sleep very well since I arrived in DC and was starting to feel a bit worn down. Yet my adrenalin was really flowing as the trial continued with the government’s case on Wednesday morning.
Officer Connor was called to the stand. When we were at the police station under arrest in March, Officer Connor said to one of us that he didn’t go any higher in rank because he didn’t want to play the games he would have to play. He also said that maybe when he retired he would join us.
The government played the Youtube video of our action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ttLP25VsSM I think playing this video hurt the government. It was very moving to watch our action on the big screen in the courtroom. I began to cry as I watched. I also noticed that DB was crying. When I looked at the jurors, one of them was clearly crying and many of them looked very moved and even pained. The video made it crystal clear what we were doing in trying to stop the war which causes the death and suffering of so many innocent people.
Officer Connor claimed both on direct and cross that we were taking up a large portion of the atrium. This is not true. We were about 30 people, and the atrium is huge. He also said that we clearly got three warnings. This is also not true. I did not hear any warnings. The videotape clearly shows Captain Neeld walk into the area and shout out, “Cease and desist. You are getting locked up. There will be no warnings. You will be arrested right now.” She immediately walked over to MK and me and said, “These two are going.”
Next Officer Mutusiak took the stand. It was similar questioning by the prosecution. Did they give us warnings? Did we take up a large space and block movement? Were we loud and disruptive? Upon cross by MK, Officer Mutusiak did admit that she saw people moving around us.
Our case
The trial had been going on for a day and a half. The jury was getting tired. We decided that it would be best if we put two witnesses on the stand and didn’t drag it out too long. EB and I were the ones chosen to go on the stand. I didn’t really want the added stress of being on the stand because I was getting nervous about the closing, but I said that I would do it if that was what was decided. I don’t have good notes on what happened while I was on the stand. I testified that I did not hear any warnings. Then I was asked by Sam, “Didn’t I know that when the police were there, they were going to be arresting us?” I answered that I am often at demonstrations against the war. There is always a police presence, but often no arrests take place.
On cross, Mr. Ferrell asked me if I had permission from my Senator to be in the Hart Senate Office Building that day. I looked at him in disbelief. I said that I did not understand the question. I couldn’t believe he would suggest that I needed my Senators permission to be there. I think the jury must also have been taken aback by that question. He also asked if I was demonstrating and I said yes. I think that was a mistake. I should have said I was there petitioning my government.
We rested our case after EB and I testified and were cross-examined by Mr. Farrell.
Closing statements
Mr. Farrell delivered a lukewarm closing statement. The jury did not appear to be very drawn into his arguments.
It was then my turn and I was very nervous, but also felt the support of so many people behind me, friends and co-activists in Madison and in DC. I had added a lot to my statement as the trial unfolded. While I was giving the statement I tried to focus on the jury and make a lot of eye contact with them. I was interrupted a lot by objections from Mr. Farrell, but I kept going to get my message out. I made several political statements that were objected to as I expected. However, I was surprised that when I talked about our First Amendment right to petition our government, there were objections that were sustained.
One of the things I wanted to say, but didn’t get out was, “If we remain silent while our government is engaged in illegal and immoral activities, then we are complicit, we are guilty of being in violation of international law and of going against our most dearly held values. It is our responsibility to speak out.”
I was again stopped as I began the last paragraph. I thought to myself, what do I do now? I wanted to get my last line in. I knew the judge was getting tired of this. I also knew that this was my only chance to get this statement into the court record. I had to say this last sentence. So, I said, “We need to bring the real criminals to justice.” I was looking right at the jury when I said it. The reporter from Al Jazeera broke into a huge smile. I sat down shaking like crazy.
The prosecution then had a chance for rebuttal. He kind of lost it during rebuttal. He sounded petty and vindictive. He talked about us being spoiled children who thought we were above the law. He said that we were there because we wanted to be arrested.
It was then the end of day 3. The next day the jury would begin deliberations.
We had many supporters who stopped in for different parts of the trial. It was so good to look into the courtroom and see the familiar loving faces of those who have often stood beside us and been arrested with us. Max Obbuszewski was there for part of the first day of the trial offering support and encouragement. Art Laffin walked into the courtroom and bowed to us in such a loving and supportive gesture that I could hardly keep from crying. Debby Churhman was with us for part of the trial and as the jury deliberated. As I felt I was falling apart waiting for the verdict, she helped pull me back together. Pete Perry was also there a good part of the time. He was a steadying presence as we continued to discuss our strategy. There were many others who were there and supported us during the ordeal.
Deliberations
We didn’t arrive at the courthouse so early on Thursday morning. There were no more discussions we needed to have. There was nothing more we could do but wait. The jury began deliberations at 9:30 and so we had to be there by that time. After about an hour the clerk called us into the courtroom saying the jury had a question. They wanted more direction from the judge on interpreting the tourist standard which I had highlighted in my closing argument. The judge said that he could not give them any more information and they must go back and deliberate with the information they have.
The jury broke for an hour lunch and then continued deliberations. We sat in the courtroom, roamed the halls, generally tried to keep from going crazy as we waited for the verdict. I kept telling myself that I need to put this in perspective. What happens to the seven of us is not the most important thing. The war continues. Innocent people continue to suffer and die everyday. At about 3:00 I was walking down by the end of the hallway and GC waved me over. He said they had a verdict. My knees turned to jelly and I started to get very teary. I had to wait about 20 minutes for Mark Goldstone to return to the courthouse. We went into the courtroom and sat in our regular spots where we had been sitting for the past four days and waited for the jury to walk in.
The verdict
As the jury walked in, I noticed several of them were smiling. I am thinking – is that a good sign? It seemed like time lost its meaning as the jurors took their chairs and we waited to hear the verdict. Then the judge asked the foreman to stand and read the verdicts. He began, “GC – not guilty.” When I heard that I knew we would all be found not guilty, but I wanted to hear my name. The foreman continued, “JF – not guilty…………..” And on for all seven of us. I started to weep. I couldn’t believe it. I looked at the jurors and saw that a couple of them also began to cry. The defendants and Mark all began to hug each other. Our supporters were right there with hugs for us. It was incredible. Mark Goldstone asked the judge if any of the jurors were interested, could they remain in the jury room because the defendants would like to talk to them.
We went into the jury room and there were two jurors who remained to talk with us. One was the reporter from Al Jazeera. The other was a man who always appeared to be supportive of us. Unfortunately, the prosecutor joined us and so I believe the conversation was less candid than it might have been. I can hardly remember what was said. I was feeling like I was in a dream. A few things I remember was that the jury voted about an hour after beginning deliberations. At that time, the majority wanted to find us guilty. After they talked to the judge about the tourist standard, they began to look at that more closely and begin to move towards acquittal. They said it was more about the law than about politics, but it is difficult to believe that their feelings about the war didn’t push many of them look for a legal way to acquit us.
It was such an intense unbelievable experience. I came home utterly exhausted, both physically and emotionally. It was a small victory for the peace movement. But, again, it has to be put in perspective. We must continue this work. We must continue taking risks in speaking out against the war. Our government continues its illegal and immoral actions in the war and occupation of Iraq that is causing the needless death of over 600,000 Iraqis and almost 4,000 US soldiers. The suffering of the families who have lost a loved one is immeasurable. As I said in my closing statement, when we have a war criminal in the White House who is responsible for this suffering, and we are arrested for reading the names of the dead in a senate office building, there is something woefully wrong with our system.
Though we have been fighting for four years to end the war, I believe what we do does make a difference. I believe that we must continue the struggle for peace and justice. We need more people to join in and I believe that is happening. We, the people, are the deciders. We, the people, can make a difference. :patriot:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
