O SHIT: Cecily McMillan jurors tell judge Occupy activist should not go to jail

[WilliamPitt]

Cecily McMillan jurors tell judge Occupy activist should not go to jail

A majority of the jurors who this week convicted an Occupy Wall Street activist of assaulting a New York police officer have asked the judge in her case to not send her to prison.

Cecily McMillan was on Monday found guilty of deliberately elbowing officer Grantley Bovell in the face, as he led her out of a protest in March 2012. She was convicted of second-degree assault, a felony, and faces up to seven years in prison. She was denied bail and is being detained at Riker's Island jail.

However, nine of the 12 jurors who unanimously reached the verdict have since taken the unusual step of writing to Judge Ronald Zweibel to request that he not give her a prison sentence on 19 May.

“We the jury petition the court for leniency in the sentencing of Cecily McMillan,” they wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian. “We would ask the court to consider probation with community service.

The rest: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/cecily-mcmillan-jurors-judge-occupy-activist-jail

[WillyT]

1. Hey Will... Did You Catch This:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024927320

[Scuba]

8. Leads to this pic, of Ms. McMillan, showing the bruises from where the cop grabbed her ...

[niyad]

53. according to one poster in another thread, the bruise is on her chest, not her breast,

and is, in all likelihood, self-inflicted. that was one depressing thread.

[KoKo]

2. Thanks for keeping up on this, Will..

I am surprised at the lack of interest (other than your post with your name) that this has gotten.

Posted Amy's "Democracy Now" report on this and little interest from our DU Females and was sad to find that.

Others said she "elbowed the cop and got what she deserved" and others said the "Judge will reduce her sentence to little or nothing...so "Who Cares." (I'm paraphrasing)

But, you can at least give some good attention to this. I don't understand what the rest of DU is doing ....including some of our own females who care so much about this issue...but, not this particular person. Whatever.... I don't know.

[Dustlawyer]

32. If she didn't know he was a cop the whole charge should have been thrown out.

Jurors tend to give a police officer's testimony more weight. If this bruise was caused in the initial grab as she testified, and had she not been ordered to do anything that she had refused to do prior to the grab, it is the officer and not this woman who should be on trial.
We do not know what all the jurors heard and saw in that trial, but from what I have seen of the evidentiary rulings the Judge made, this case may have been shaped by the Judge to obtain the result he wanted. Judges are people too, people with a lot of power over you and I if we are charged with something. Most will give you a fair trial, but some come to the Bench with an agenda. This is why you hear of outlandish rulings and buddy deals. Sometimes the State Bars are quick to discipline, other times not so much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. While I am interested in this case

And the signal it sends...anything that has to do with social justice rarely gets traction anymore, let alone Occupy. It's like people have gone to sleep again.

[KoKo]

3. Here's My Link to Post I did about her and "Willy T" just posted his Post...

Look at the replies on both our posts...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024917507

[WilliamPitt]

5. New DU.

[KoKo]

6. Well sometimes it does seem to be a foreign land...to those of us who've been here a long time.

I don't know what else to say.

[WilliamPitt]

7. François Villon

In my own country I am in a far-off land
I am strong but have no force or power
I win all yet remain a loser
At break of day I say goodnight
When I lie down I have a great fear
Of falling.

[KoKo]

12. Nice...

I'll go out on a limb here and say: It's about Preserving "Our Union i.e. Party?"

I read this when I was around 10 years old and it haunted me ... The WIKI puts it in more background than I did at 10 where I took a different meaning.. But, for some reason I think of this these days even though the context of Civil War...I stretch now to "Preserving "the union" (whatever that means in these times) and what the character Philip Nolan went through in this short story which Wiki seems to say was propaganda story for the North.

I'm not taking it as North vs. South...but, those who chose not to go along to get along and lose it all...and die wrapped in patriotism.

whatever...I'm sure this seems silly...but, it haunts me..something about these times we live in:

------

The Man Without a Country
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_a_Country
The Man Without a Country" is a short story by American writer Edward Everett Hale, first published in The Atlantic in December 1863.[1] It is the story of American Army lieutenant Philip Nolan, who renounces his country during a trial for treason and is consequently sentenced to spend the rest of his days at sea without so much as a word of news about the United States. Though the story is set in the early 19th century, it is an allegory about the upheaval of the American Civil War and was meant to promote the Union cause.
Plot summary

The protagonist is a young United States Army lieutenant, Philip Nolan, who develops a friendship with the visiting Aaron Burr. When Burr is tried for treason (historically this occurred in 1807), Nolan is tried as an accomplice. During his testimony, he bitterly renounces his nation, angrily shouting, "I wish I may never hear of the United States again!" The judge was completely shocked at this announcement, and on convicting him, icily grants him his wish: he is to spend the rest of his life aboard United States Navy warships, in exile, with no right ever again to set foot on U.S. soil, and with explicit orders that no one shall ever mention his country to him again.

The sentence is carried out to the letter. For the rest of his life, Nolan is transported from ship to ship, living out his life as a prisoner on the high seas, never once allowed back in a home port. Though he is treated according to his former rank, nothing of his country was ever mentioned to him. None of the sailors in whose custody Nolan remains is allowed to speak to him about the U.S., and his newspapers are censored. Nolan is unrepentant at first, but over the years becomes sadder and wiser, and desperate for news. One day, as he is being transferred to another ship, he beseeches a young sailor never to make the same mistake that he had: "Remember, boy, that behind all these men ... behind officers and government, and people even, there is the Country Herself, your Country, and that you belong to her as you belong to your own mother. Stand by her, boy, as you would stand by your mother ... !" In his time on one such ship, he attends a party in which he dances with a young lady he had formerly known. He then beseeches her to tell him something, anything, about the United States, but she quickly withdraws and speaks no longer to him.

Deprived of a homeland, Nolan slowly and painfully learns the true worth of his country. He misses it more than his friends or family, more than art or music or love or nature. Without it, he is nothing. Dying aboard the USS Levant, he shows his room to an officer named Danforth; it is "a little shrine" of patriotism. The Stars and Stripes are draped around a picture of George Washington. Over his bed, Nolan has painted a bald eagle, with lightning "blazing from his beak" and claws grasping the globe. At the foot of his bed is an outdated map of the United States, showing many of its old territories that had, unbeknownst to him, been admitted to statehood. Nolan smiles, "Here, you see, I have a country!" The dying man asks desperately to be told the news of American history since 1807, and Danforth finally relates to him almost all of the major events that have happened to the U.S. since his sentence was imposed; the narrator confesses, however, that "I could not make up my mouth to tell him a word about this infernal rebellion." Nolan asks him to have them bury him in the sea and have a gravestone placed in memory of him at Fort Adams, Mississippi or at New Orleans. When he is found dead later that day, he is found to have drafted a suitably patriotic epitaph for himself. The epitaph states: In memory of PHILIP NOLAN, "'Lieutenant in the Army of the United States. He loved his country as no other man has loved her; but no man deserved less at her hands.'"
Effectiveness

Hale published "The Man Without a Country" in the Atlantic Monthly in 1863 to bolster support for the Union in the North.[2] In this first publication, Hale's name does not appear at the beginning or end of the story, though it does appear in the annual index at the end of that issue of the magazine. It was later collected in 1868 in the book The Man Without a Country, And Other Tales published by Ticknor and Fields.

Danforth's summary to Nolan of American history from 1807 to 1860 is an outline of the Northern case for preservation of the Union. The young country is shown standing up fearlessly to the then-global superpower, Great Britain; expanding to North America's Pacific coast; developing new contributions to human knowledge, such as the Smithsonian Institution; and developing new technology such as steamboats. Items of American history that might not contribute to this picture, such as widespread Northern support for slavery and Indian removal, are elided or ignored.

As Hale had intended, the short story created substantial support for the United States as a country, identifying the priority of the Union over the individual states, and thus pressuring readers to view Southern secession negatively. In so doing, he convinced many individuals to join, or at least support the North's effort to, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "preserve the Union."

[City Lights]

14. Some of those responses are unreal.

I cannot believe I just read that on DU.

My oh my how things have changed since my arrival way back when.

[niyad]

54. the responses in this thread are depressing, to say the least:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024918487

[catrose]

4. Are policemen being taught to grab women from behind

Because all the self-defense classes I ever took told me to react decisively in such a situation. This case is reminiscent of the Austin jaywalker, who was set on from behind by policemen.

I'm having a hard time believing that she was convicted, particularly with the injuries she had. Do the police want us to wait and make sure it's not a policeman attacking us?

[passiveporcupine]

9. from the video I saw

he grabbed her from behind, after she elbowed him in the face, without any provocation.

I don't think she should go to jail either...but I do think she started the incident with her elbow jab. I could be wrong. It's hard to tell from just one quick video.

[Niceguy1]

28. I kind of lean that way aswell

I dont think a lengthy jail term is warranted, even though it aplears that she did contribute to the altercation.

[Jefferson23]

10. I will never understand the verdict, and I hope the judge considers the jurors request. n/t

[mountain grammy]

11. An outrageous miscarriage of justice.

[morningfog]

13. The spirit of Occupy activism has spread to the jury! I love it.

[brooklynite]

20. ...and the Jury still thinks she's guilty...

"We find the the Felony mark in Cecily's record in punishment enough"

Spirit indeed...

[Hissyspit]

23. They're trying to keep her out of jail.

Jeez...

[brooklynite]

45. Not disputing that, but it doesn't sound like "OCCUPY Activism" to me,,,

Sounds like basic fairness.

[morningfog]

27. Sure, the next step is jury nullification, but they are recognizing and

advocating against over-sentencing.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

15. I wouldn't have voted to convcict in the first place.

Is nullification an idea that most people are ignorant exists?

[Demeter]

16. They probably browbeat the jury into conviction

any organization that would tolerate such brutality to peaceful protest will stoop that low, and stop at nothing.

(unmixing metaphors)

[ohnoyoudidnt]

18. It's disappointing that so many people (jurors) give in so easily.

I hope to one day be a juror on a case where the government is overreaching and have the chance to not give in.

[Nevernose]

21. The evidence, at least as presented, was pretty strong against her

And note the controlling phrase "as presented."

In the Guardian article,the prosecutor made a pretty damning case. That was just to the liberal media. That, combined with office testimony (and we're constantly told from childhood that all cops are heroes), and I could see how the jury would buy her guilt.

My real argument, though, is that even if she was guilty, the DA overcharged and the penalty is too high. Even if she's 100% guilty the officer wasn't injured enough to even receive medical attention. He finished his shift that night. A misdemeanor and some community service was all she should receive -- and that's on the hypothetical assumption that she was guilty.

[struggle4progress]

44. She turned down a deal that would have resulted only in probation:

AMY GOODMAN: So she could have gotten probation.
MARTIN STOLAR: She could have pled guilty to a felony. She could have gotten probation.
Occupy Wall Street on Trial: Cecily McMillan Convicted of Assaulting Cop, Faces Up to Seven Years
Wednesday, 07 May 2014 11:10
By Amy Goodman and Aaron Mate
Democracy Now!

The charge isn't out-of-bounds under NY law: it would normally be a third-degree felony, but the fact of assault on an officer promotes it to a second degree felony. The judge has some sentencing latitude. He can sentence her to any definite term less than a year; or he can sentence her to an indeterminate term, setting some minimum between one year and two years four months and setting some maximum between three and seven years

[Hissyspit]

46. So?

[struggle4progress]

48. So the prosecution's unlikely to pound the table and demand the stiffest possible penalty,

which would be an indeterminate sentence of two-and-a-third to seven years

[Hissyspit]

50. So maybe she thinks she's innocent?

Jeez...

[backscatter712]

47. As presented...

The prosecutor and the judge suppressed virtually all attempts from the defense to present mitigating evidence, claiming it would "prejudice the jury".

My guess is that the jury did their job, with the shitty information they were allowed, then left the courthouse, read the real story in the papers and on the web, and were horrified.

[JoeyT]

22. Probably.

Seeing as the authoritarian asshats will gleefully prosecute people for advocating for it, the general public probably isn't aware it's a thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html

[ohnoyoudidnt]

26. Thanks for the article.

The idea of nullification should be common sense. It's too bad people have to go through that kind of crap for trying to inform.

[DhhD]

17. She should file charges accusing him of attempting to rape her as he was behind her grabbing her

breast instead of the arm that she raised.

[struggle4progress]

49. She wouldn't win that:

... she .. never filed a formal complaint with the department about Bovell's treatment of her ... <and> nowhere in records from doctors, a social worker or a psychologist who treated McMillan in the hours after her arrest is there an allegation that a police officer grabbed McMillan's breast ...

[Hissyspit]

19. Read Between the Lines:

They are pissed they were manipulated and used.

[DhhD]

24. I believe that the jury has the right to ask the judge about prior excessive force and to see the

city paid officer's, job reviews and state arrest records. A juror can hang the jury until the evidence is presented or refused during deliberations. If it is refused, that is a red flag! Don't convict.

[MrMickeysMom]

25. It's pretty fucking pathetic when you have to resort to a petition ...

… to do what is right.

I guess we're pretty much not following any rule of due process or constitutional rights anymore.

Judge Ronald can kiss my entire ass after he grants that gift to these shivering, shrinking violets…

[randome]

30. The same jury said she was guilty. That's quite a bit of 'due process'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

31. The same jury seems to have some buyer's remorse about their part in that 'due process.'

[randome]

33. They don't want her to receive an extended sentence.

That's very different from believing she is innocent. I hope she doesn't get much of a sentence, either, but I'm not naive enough to think the jury is automatically wrong simply because some want them to be wrong.

McMillan claimed she was a pacifist then that she was groped then that she had a seizure then that she had PTSD.

She no doubt came across to the jury as a petulant child who refused to be honest with them. And that's why they didn't believe her and found her guilty.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

35. And you can't assume from that letter that some or all don't now think that she

is innocent. They are being diplomatic.

People are not automatically thinking the verdict was wrong just be cause they want it to be.

[TorchTheWitch]

36. people here have been using the video evidence as proof

of her being innocent when not one single person here could show where it is in that video that he put his arm around her from behind and groped her breast just before she flings her elbow back. There is NO QUESTION that if that very important evidence is in that video that everyone that believes her accusation would have pointed it out by time or frame or whatever. Yet time and again it's been claimed by those that believe she was truthful about what occurred that the video shows her to be innocent and to "watch the video" and supposedly it's clearly shown in the video. Not even her own attorney believed that as it was the prosecution that brought in that video evidence and the defense that argued against it as being too blurry/unclear to show what she claimed happened.

Several times I pointedly asked people here to show exactly where in that video it shows what she claimed to be accurate concerning what happened and not even one person bothered to even make the attempt. Why? Because her own attorney was correct that you CAN'T see in the video what she claimed to have occurred, but just pretended they weren't asked by ignoring the request to show where in the video it proves her claim as to what occurred or just made some BS snarky comment.

Not one single juror has made even the slightest indication that they regret their guilty verdict or were manipulated into there vote of guilty. They found her guilty and STILL believe that she is. They were only surprised by the severity of the possible sentence, and apparently nine of them believe that more prison time is not appropriate in this case.

The range of prison sentence is to provide appropriate prison time for a wide range of incidents. Had this been a case of someone sneaking up on a police officer and beating them severely with a bat that caused severe injury which resulted in the officer being hospitalized/in recovery for weeks or months and/or left them with permanent disability of some sort then sure, the maximum sentence would be appropriate. Considering the light injury the officer in this case sustained and the fact that he had no problem completing his shift that night then a far lesser sentence is appropriate. That's likely why they don't want to see her do any jail time particularly since the injuries that she sustained when she was so roughly tackled by the officer were far more severe than the injury he sustained by her flying elbow.

Unless the judge is a scumbucket I doubt she'll get any more prison time than that which she has already served or possibly a month more or so (though personally I believe the time she's already served is enough). Probation, community service and time served really is what is most appropriate in this case, and that's also what the jury believes as they said in the letter and how some of them responded to the press after the trial was over, and they found out what the sentence could be.

[Hissyspit]

37. Actually you can't tell much of shit from the video.

But go ahead, defend the double standards in our justice system, when Bloomberg's private army night goons shouldn't have even been there in the first place.

[TorchTheWitch]

39. what on earth are you talking about?

I didn't say a thing about defending the double standards in our justice system. WTF???

[Hissyspit]

40. Why cops who assaulted Occupy got away with it,

but protesters get trials so stacked against them that they disturb the jurors when they figure out what's going on.

Why some are too big to fail or jail and others get their lives ruined over nothing infractions.

[TorchTheWitch]

58. point out where I ever said that

because I did no such thing.

We're talking about ONE case here. ONE. And that case was decided by the evidence, which was a lot more than just that video which does NOT show what she claimed happened just as her own attorney said. The jurors decided she was guilty because they didn't believe what she claimed based on ALL the evidence which we don't even know what all that was - WE weren't at the trial. They weren't bullied or hoodwinked into finding her guilty, and trying to claim otherwise when you have no idea what they were thinking or why or anything about their deliberations is just stupid.

Of course the police were horrible in how they treated protesters, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with THIS case. The jurors aren't allowed to have any bias and consider what other police officers were doing, when, where, why, to whom or what their overall behavior is like in general. If the evidence is stacked against her than that's why she was found guilty because that's the way our system works, and it makes perfect sense that in a trial the defendant is judged based on the evidence. She was rightfully arrested and charged because she struck an officer, and the law says that's a felony. The jurors don't get to decide whether or not she should have been arrested or why or for what charge - that's what the law is whether they like it or not. And if they don't like it then they weren't fit for jury service because jurors aren't allowed to make judgements based on biases or a wide scope but only on the evidence presented.

It's too bad that she decided it was a good idea to hit a police officer and that the evidence didn't show why she claimed she did it. Her hitting him is why she was charged, and she should have been. She was offered a deal and made her own decision to not take it and go to trial. The trial happened because SHE wanted it to because SHE decided to take the risk that she would be found not guilty. She gambled and lost. And all of this happened to her because SHE made the decision to commit the felony of hitting an officer. She was the only one brought to trial because SHE was the only one to have hit an officer and not take the plea deal she was offered which didn't have to be offered in the first place.

The whole police against protesters of Occupy story is a disgrace in peaceful protesting and police brutality, and there's no question whatsoever that the police were ordered to do as they did with many cops using it as an opportunity to go way overboard and brutalize peaceful people without provocation. But that doesn't have a thing to do with judging THIS particular case. It is FAR beyond the scope of this one incident having no business even being mentioned at trial. That's a whole different matter that SHOULD be investigated with every instance of police brutality brought against every officer and gone all the way to the top of who made the decision to send them out and to behave unlawfully and brutally. But that's never going to happen because of ugly politics. Though it MIGHT have if enough people brought enough pressure for that to happen instead of just whining about it on the internet.

Further, hitting a police officer without provocation is a felony not a "nothing infraction". And that's as it should be.

[MrMickeysMom]

34. Interesting… what a trade off...

"We'll wear these brown shirts if you don't make it look like we say we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[The Wizard]

29. Uniform worship

is a real threat to liberty.

[nomorenomore08]

42. +1

And you see too much of it even here, sadly.

[struggle4progress]

41. It didn't help her that she never got her story straight

... McMillan, 25, had argued NYPD police officer Grantley Bovell grabbed her breast before she clocked him in the eye with her elbow during the March 18, 2012 encounter at Zuccotti Park. She ended up giving him a shiner ... Video of the incident is grainy, but does not appear to show the groping she claimed happened. When McMillan testified, she claimed she didn't remember hitting him ...
Female OWS protester convicted of assaulting cop, faces prison time
BY Shayna Jacobs
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, May 5, 2014, 6:19 PM


... A jury of eight women and four men took less than three hours to decide that the protester, Cecily McMillan, 25, was responsible for assaulting the officer, rejecting her contention that she had reacted instinctively when he grabbed her breast during a protest on St. Patrick’s Day. Ms. McMillan had said she could not distinctly recall what happened amid the chaos of the night ...
Woman Found Guilty of Assaulting Officer at an Occupy Wall Street Protest
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.MAY 5, 2014

[WillyT]

57. I Love How You... Struggle For "Progress"...

Read This: http://www.thenation.com/article/179768/editors-dont-belong-courtrooms-and-cecily-mcmillan-doesnt-belong-prison#

I guess your definition of progress, is different than mine.

[struggle4progress]

63. The difference between us is (I think) that I should prefer not to decide what the facts

in such a case are, based simply on the views of those involved. To judge such cases, based on the views of participants, is unfair -- and the public will regard it as unfair. That is IMO a quick road to political failure

[WillyT]

64. I Hear Ya... And I May Post About This Someday... But A Hint...

I was placed on a jury for a murder trial. The only time I got picked for a jury.

There were two defendants, it was suggested that it might be gang related, the defendants were minorities...

And when we the jury were given the case... the "foreman" looked at his watch, as did almost everybody else... And instead of asking, "All in favor of taking an initial secret vote to find out where we all stand at this point..."

He said out loud, "All those that think they are guilty of Murder 1, raise your hands..."

MINE... WAS THE ONLY HAND TO STAY UN-RAISED.

Everybody else was ready to throw these guys in the hole, and get back to work.

It was like they were annoyed that anybody had bothered to ask for their opinions.

My view of American Justice changed that day.

[struggle4progress]

43. Officer Testifies About Encounter With Occupy Wall Street Protester (NYT)

By ALAN FEUER
APRIL 14, 2014

... When Officer Bovell entered the park with dozens of his colleagues, he said, he saw a young woman in the crowd, flailing her arms and shouting curses at a female officer. Officer Bovell approached the shouting woman and, he testified Monday, calmly tried to inform her that she had to leave the park, which, he added, was scheduled for a cleaning. He said he told her that she was “more than welcome” to return after the cleaning was done.

What followed the exchange between them remains a dispute and stands as the central question at the young woman’s criminal trial, which is underway at State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Taking the stand to give his account, Officer Bovell said that as he tried to escort the woman, Cecily McMillan, from the park, she whirled around and her elbow hit him — “pretty hard,” he put it — in the eye. Ms. McMillan, who has been charged with assault, said it was an accident. She contends that she unintentionally struck Officer Bovell after he accosted her from behind, grabbing her right breast ...

... Ms. McMillan, a 25-year-old labor organizer, was one of the few defendants who chose to go to trial, worried that by pleading guilty to a felony assault she would permanently damage her record. And so she sat in court on Monday morning as Officer Bovell told the jury how he tried to escort her from the park — an effort, he contended, Ms. McMillan met with stubbornness and expletives. “As I’m walking her out,” Officer Bovell testified, “I remember her saying to someone: ‘Are you filming this? Are you filming this?’ Then I remember the defendant crouching down and lunging with her elbow and hitting me in the eye” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/nyregion/officer-testifies-about-encounter-with-occupy-wall-street-protester.html

[Hissyspit]

51. Did his side of the story get preferential treatment?

http://www.thenation.com/article/179768-editors-dont-belong-courtrooms-and-cecily-mcmillan-doesnt-belong-prison

Editors Don't Belong in Courtrooms, and Cecily McMillan Doesn't Belong in Prison

Kathryn Funkhouser on May 9, 2014 - 0:13PM ET

- snip -

Throughout the case, the prosecutor set out to distract the jury from the question at hand by discussing undocumented events, treating witnesses' opinions as fact and casting aspersions on McMillan's character. Judge Zweibel gave them free rein to do so, while consistently ruling key testimony and evidence for the defense inadmissible. This pattern was most clearly demonstrated in the court's treatment of evidentiary video footage. Several videos posted to YouTube show the crowd at Zuccotti Park from different angles on the night in question. However, the jury saw only a sliver of blurry footage. According to the defense, out of a ten-minute video of the events before and after McMillan's elbow struck Bovell's face, only fifty-two seconds was admitted. Zweibel's justification? At the beginning of this fifty-two-second section is the first frame in which Bovell says he can definitively identify himself.

It's particularly convenient for Bovell that none of the contextual footage was shown. Another piece of his testimony was directly contradicted by the melee shown at the beginning of the video, in which another officer shoves a protester and announces through a bullhorn, "Leave the park or you will be arrested." Bovell testified that there was an announcement that the park was being temporarily cleared for routine cleaning, at which point the belligerent protesters suddenly began to cause trouble for the polite police force. The violence with which the police are shown to interact with unresistant protesters in the full video is key to understanding the events of that night. But the judge ruled this footage inadmissible because Bovell's memory, which proved extremely selective under cross-examination, conveniently didn't coincide with it. One of the jurors anonymously told The Guardian that it was this fifty-two-second clip, taken out of context, that led the jury to its guilty verdict.

- snip -

Throughout the trial, the courtroom rang out with objections, but the judge's rulings fell overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution. Zweibel sustained so many of the prosecution's objections that several times he said "sustained" before Assistant District Attorney Erin Choi could even say the word "objection". Some courtroom onlookers began placing bets on how many "sustains" for the prosecution Zweibel would pronounce. Drew Mitchell, a member of the group Justice For Cecily who attended the trial, was shaken by the pronounced inequality of the judge's treatment of the two sides: "Every rule that could be enforced on the defense was enforced. The prosecution had no rules."

McMillan's character and history were not only scrutinized but mocked. When defense witness Yoni Miller described McMillan's reputation in Occupy forums as "queen of nonviolence," ADA Choi cried, "She is a fraud!" When Miller described seeing McMillan convulsing unaided on the pavement, Choi flailed her arms and hips in an exaggerated, ridiculous fashion, archly asking if her imitation of a seizure resembled McMillan's. The prosecution's portrait of this accomplished young activist, says Shay Horse, one of her supporters, is that of "a publicity-crazed millennial," an image that dovetails with their claim that McMillan hit Bovell for attention from the cameras. In her closing arguments, Choi extended her jeering tone to general statements about assault and those who are assaulted. She said that Bovell would have had to have iron hands to leave a bruise through clothes. Tim Eastman, who attended the closing arguments, tweeted: "Pros[ecutor] says Cecily is ‘not shy' and therefore ‘would not have trouble reporting sexual assault.'"

While the prosecution took copious liberties in their depiction of McMillan, any attempt by the defense to question Bovell's testimony or bring up his record was quickly shut down by Choi and Zweibel. Although Bovell's involvement in the Bronx ticket-fixing scandal was discussed, the defense was prevented from addressing other, violent parts of his record. In 2010, he was involved in a lawsuit against the NYPD for his participation in an incident in which NYPD officers ran off the road a teenage boy on a dirt bike. In 2009, he kicked in the face a suspect lying on the ground. He allegedly assaulted Occupy protester Austin Guest on the same day as McMillan's arrest. These episodes were not permitted to be entered into evidence. When Stolar explained to Zweibel that he had two eyewitnesses (uninvolved in the pending lawsuit against Bovell) who saw Guest be lifted up by Bovell and a second officer and slammed head-first into each row of seats on the bus used to transport prisoners to court, the judge exclaimed, "He must have been resisting!" and called the allegations hearsay.

Concrete evidence supporting the defense's argument was consistently rejected in favor of the suppositions of the prosecution, whose arguments were often based on a lack of evidence instead of its presence. For example, while there is photographic evidence of McMillan's bruises, coinciding with her story that her breast was grabbed, the prosecution was permitted to speculate that they were self-inflicted. Their alternate story involves Bovell's helping out a female officer at whom McMillan was cursing, though no one in the trial could determine this female officer's identity or even if she exists. The prosecution's claims that McMillan faked a seizure and had no bruises when she was admitted to the hospital are based on the lack of notes taken during her medical treatment.

And was she really unwell? Bovell testified that he told her, "If you can speak to me, you can breathe.' "What medical degrees do you hold?" asked the defense attorney, Martin Stolar. "Objection," said the ADA flatly. "Sustained," said the judge, sounding bored. Now he had decided he didn't find speculation unacceptable.

- snip -

This is more believable than the possibility that on a night when protesters were arrested in a manner that The New York Times described as "brutal and random," an officer who once kicked a suspect in the face grabbed McMillan's breast, in a way consistent with bruises that were entered into evidence, and she flailed out with her elbow in a startled reaction? More believable than the idea that an officer on probation at that time for being involved in a ticket-fixing scandal would need a justification for the bruises on his prisoner and his public indifference to her medical distress?

MORE

[struggle4progress]

62. I wasn't on the jury. So I don't know the demeanor of the witnesses or other such details.

The jury is our ancient method for determining the facts of a case

If McMillan feels the judge improperly excluded testimony, she is free to appeal that the conviction be vacated and a new trial offered. But it seems to me, from press reports, that her chances there are slim

No matter how many of her supporters claim she was simply protesting in a well-behaved manner, her own testimony was that she was drinking to celebrate St Patrick's day and was not protesting there at all. No matter how many of her supporters want to promote McMillan's reputation in Occupy forums as "queen of nonviolence," she did not dispute in her defense that she had elbowed the man in the eye: her claim was that she simply does not remember doing so and must have reflexively reacted to an alleged sexual assault by the officer

Unfortunately, she did not mention this alleged assault until several days later: she had medical examinations in the immediate aftermath of the arrest, the reports of which do not record any such claim, let alone any evidence supporting such a claim. Neither do her interviews with a social worker and with a psychologist, immediately after her arrest, record any such allegation. Nor did she ever file a sexual assault complaint against the officer for this alleged assault

The officer's testimony differs from hers in various respects: he says she asked a friend to video what she did next before elbowing him in the eye. A video, which apparently she did not deny captures the elbow-to-eye event, was shown during the trial, and it does not appear to reflect her version of events

A very large number of the Zuccotti Park cases were dropped. Hers was not, probably because the state believed she attacked and injured the officer deliberately. She was offered probation if she would plead but chose not to do so. On trial, the jury concluded the prosecution had made its case beyond reasonable doubt

I would expect her difficulty, should she appeal, would be this. The prosecution theory of the case follows the officer's testimony, and the state is required to convince the jury. The judge therefore is expected to allow only such defense testimony as might tend to discredit the prosecution's theory. To win on appeal, she might need to convince the higher court that a new trial would likely lead to a different outcome, and that might be a hard sell

[MannyGoldstein]

52. How come this post doesn't have 200+ recs?

WTF is wrong with this place?

This is great stuff!

[niyad]

56. read some of the responses here, and in the other threads, and you will understand.

[frylock]

59. you got a problem with the Authoritarian Underground, Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Well... I guess not

As long as it's half as authoritarian as Republicans want it to be. Or at least that's my starting position.

[WillyT]

55. HUGE K & R !!!

[myrna minx]

60. K&R /nt