Jury Convicts Woman for Laughing During Sessions Hearing

[DonViejo]

Source: The Daily Beast




A D.C. jury on Wednesday convicted an activist on criminal misdemeanor charges for laughing during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing earlier this year. Desiree Fairooz, 61, was protesting the January 10 hearing with other members of the Code Pink activist group—two of whom were also arrested for causing a disruption. According to government documents, Fairooz had two loud bouts of laughter as Sessions spoke positively of his own history with race relations. “Defendant Fairooz... let out aloud [sic] burst of laughter, followed by a second louder burst of laughter," the document read. A spokesperson for Code Pink, however, said the noise was more like a reflexive laugh “quieter than a cough.” Fairooz’s guilty charges for disrupting Congress could result in a sentence of six months in jail.

READ IT AT NBC NEWS

###

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/05/03/jury-convicts-woman-for-laughing-during-sessions-hearing?via=desktop&source=copyurl

[no_hypocrisy]

1. She should appeal the verdict.

[onenote]

2. I suspect she will, although I'm not sure on what grounds.

[WinkyDink]

5. The grounds of Free Speech? Of laughter's being usually considered involuntary? Of the TOTAL

ABSURDITY of this charge??

[onenote]

8. Maybe. But the charge was that she was disruptive and the jury agreed

Appeals courts are reluctant to second guess juries. Not saying she won't win. Just that it's not necessarily a slam dunk.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. I think we will win on appeal, if she has a better than average appellate lawyer. . . nt

[onenote]

6. It may be a tough appeal to win.

Appellate courts generally do not review the facts "de novo." So she'd have to argue that the law was unconstitutional. And it's unlikely that the law barring disruption of Congress would be struck down as unconstitutional (or, to put it another way, its likely that the law will be upheld as a reasonable "time, place and manner" restriction.

Do I think it was sufficiently disruptive to violate the law? Not based on what I read. But an appellate court is unlikely to reverse a jury verdict that it was sufficiently disruptive to violate the law.

[jazzcat23]

3. only the beginning

of the hell that is to come. She has to appeal this stupidity. What happened to the first amendment? It hasn't been taken away legally yet. That is the intention, however. But not allowed to laugh at this bufoon? I knew Sessions would be a major nightmare, but this soon? I didn't see that coming....
We must realize that what they are doing in congress is taking away our rights, one by one. And our protections, in one fell swoop of king baby's pen. Their other plan is to remove our right to sue, over anything and everything. We will soon have NO recourse in this country. And the trump voters are responsible for this. It's become obvious to me that you cannot fix stupid!

[iluvtennis]

7. So under the Trump admin, we can now go to jail for using our 1st Amendment rights. Seriously??

[Yo_Mama]

15. Try standing up in any court during proceedings and creating a disruption!

The First Amendment has reasonable limits, and courts always enforce those limits.

There is not a shadow of a chance that a court would decide that laws preventing speech disruptions of Congress violate the First Amendment.

Even common sense should tell you this. You can't have a sit-in in a courtroom, police station, or Congress. But the First Amendment protects the right to assemble. The First Amendment protects my right to the free exercise of religion, but that doesn't mean I can show up with a couple of priests and celebrate Mass in the local legislature while it's in session.

[lordsummerisle]

9. Maybe

she just should've yelled "you lie!"...

[truthisfreedom]

10. Joe Wilson screamed "YOU LIE!" at President Obama... he should have been convicted.

Not only was he disrupting Obama's speech but he was lying himself.

[JudyM]

18. Prosecuting bad and even, say, criminal behavior, doesn't seem to be our thing.

[myrna minx]

11. If she can be convicted for laughing, perhaps we should revisit Sessions perjury then.

[Ninsianna]

16. Sounds like a plan, but who could prosecute?

[dalton99a]

17. +1

[Valhallakey]

12. What about the other people who laughed at Session's jokes?

[mdbl]

13. Sessions IS a joke.

[GReedDiamond]

14. Is it fascism yet?...

...cuz it sure stinks like a nazi took a dump on our democracy.

[WoonTars]

20. Right?

[OrwellwasRight]

21. My thoughts exactly.

Notice it was Sessions' Dept of Justice that prosecuted her for essentially making him angry.

[malthaussen]

19. It's DC. Possibly the most liberal town in America.

Yet the jury still voted to convict -- misdemeanor, mind, which is not much worse than a parking ticket, in a practical sense.

The fault lies not in the jury for conviction, but in the prosecution who brought this case to trial. Although I'm surprised the defense wasn't able to make use of the fact that the accusation of "disruption" is absurd. How does that work? If Congress said they were "disrupted," they were? Shades of censuring Elizabeth Warren.

-- Mal