|
Report of Day 2 of Phil's trial. Bottom line: Not Guilty on all four counts!!!
Now for the details: The trial started a bit late, around 10:00, due to a flood of unrelated matters before the court. The morning began with an hour or so of testimony by airport police officer Robert Dilley, who portrayed himself as a very nice guy, just trying to "keep the peace" at the airport, who was initially not inclined to arrest Phil at all but was forced to do so by his actions. He testified that Phil was causing a disturbance by yelling, but the videotape made clear that Phil never yelled (or at least not during those 3.5 minutes). Dilley was not a credible witness, in my opinion -- but I was concerned that the jury would believe him. Apparently not!
The defense did not call any witnesses, which I believed from the beginning to be the correct strategy. Thus, all testimony was concluded, and the jury would get to decide whether the state had met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Phil had violated four laws. The defense sought a directed verdict of acquittal from the judge, but he declined to do that on any of the counts.
The two sides argued for maybe another hour about the specific instructions that the judge would give to the jury. There was one very important and sensitive dispute about the definition of "disorderly conduct." The state wanted to rely on the language of the statute, but the defense wanted to include clarifying -- and helpful -- language from a 1966 court case that was later cited as precedent by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. After an intense debate, the judge ruled in favor of the defense, which was very helpful to Phil. It was a critical moment in the trial. We then took a 3-hour lunch break (during which the court handled more unrelated matters).
After lunch, the judge gave his instructions, which were lengthy but excellent. Then each side gave closing arguments. The senior prosecutor did his best, arguing that Phil had entered the airport with an agenda and simply had crossed a line into illegality. The defense argued that Phil had broken no law; specifically, on each of the four charges:
1. He was not disorderly. Mere questioning of the TSA does not rise to the level of illegality, and the only people raising their voices were the TSA and the police.
2. He was not required to identify himself if he was not breaking the law. That charge really depended on the others.
3. He did not refuse to obey a lawful order because he was not given an opportunity to obey the order before being instantly arrested. He gave every indication that he would have obeyed if given a chance.
4. He was not trespassing because he had a valid reason to be at the airport. Anyway, trespassing and disobeying a lawful order were essentially the same alleged crime.
The prosecutor tried to rebut these arguments but did not say anything new.
The jury began deliberating around 4:15 and returned after an hour and ten minutes with four "not guilty" verdicts. I was elated, as were apparently all observers in the courtroom at that time. The prosecutors didn't seem to care -- and were apparently not surprised. Phil's family and lawyers were obviously thrilled.
Phil gave a marvelous interview to Channel 4 after the verdict was announced. I'm watching a snippet of that interview right now on TV. He really did a great job. He'll be on the radio tonight from 9 to 11.
This is really a tremendous victory. We all owe Phil a great debt of gratitude.
Bruce
|