Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol XXIII

Tonight's Weird (but true) Legal Case examines the interplay between the First Amendment and the need to maintain order at a baseball game.

In People v. O'Grady, 175 Misc.2d 61, 667 N.Y.S.2d 895 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Cty 1997), the court dealt with a matter in which an individual was prosecuted for running out on to the field at Yankee Stadium during the sixth game of the World Series in 1996. While many (although thank G-d not too many) fans do run out on to the field at sporting events, Mr. O'Grady was not merelt seeking the thrill of meeting the players or showing off his physique. Instead, Mr. O'Grady made a political statement as he had two messages written on his bare torso. "On his chest and stomach was written “Howard Stern for President.” On his back was written “Guilliani [sic] kiss my ...,” with an arrow pointing down to the defendant's buttocks."

In seeking to dismiss, O'Grady came up with a novel argument - that the prosecution was discriminatory as it was in retalitaion for his exercise of his right to criticize the government. In framing his argument, O'Grady's counsel noted that:

The District Attorney's office has recommended the defendant be given a ninety-day jail sentence if he chooses to plead guilty to the charges. The defendant complains that this overture is uncommonly harsh. He notes that another person charged with Trespassing on the field of Yankee Stadium during that same World Series game was allowed to plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct upon the condition that he perform only seven days of community service.
O'Grady had additional support for his argument that his case was being treated more harshly because of the writing on his body. He noted that "on December 17, 1996 the Judge in Part AP-2 asked why this case is being treated differently than other similar cases and the Assistant District Attorney responded: 'The writing on his body, your Honor, especially in reference to the Mayor.'"

In discussing the legal standard to be applied, the Judge noted that:

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State from enforcing even a valid law “with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances.” In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra, the Supreme Court held that purposeful discrimination in the administration of an otherwise nondiscriminatory law violates equal protection. This principle has since been applied in a number of cases. United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616 (7th Cir.1973) (refusing induction into the armed forces); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir.1972) (refusal to answer census questions); People v. Utica Daw's Drug Co., 16 A.D.2d 12, 225 N.Y.S.2d 128 (4th Dept.1962) (village ordinance banning commercial signs greater than a certain size).
The court then explained that:

To establish discriminatory enforcement, it must be shown at the outset that there is a conscious and intentional discrimination in prosecuting for a crime in a community where there is “general disregard of a particular law”(People v. Utica Daw's Drug Co., 16 A.D.2d 12, 17, 225 N.Y.S.2d 128, supra) and it must be further established that (1) a similar crime was committed and that the prosecution had legally sufficient evidence connecting someone with the commission of that crime; (2) the prosecution singled out defendant because of “personal animosity, nonconformity, unpopularity, or some other illegitimate reason offensive to our notions of fair play and equal treatment under the law,” and (3) the prosecutorial determination to single out defendant was part of a pattern of discrimination intentionally practiced against him.

Following this review of the law, the court denied the motion to dismiss, explaining:

It appears that the defendant in the current case is being offered an ungenerous plea because of the writing on his body. However, it is precisely this writing that distinguishes this case from the unexceptional run-onto-the-field case. The allegations that the defendant had provocative announcements composed on his torso show that he had a different intent and a less spontaneous mental state. It shows preparation and premeditation. Furthermore, the message about the Mayor was vulgar and was very inappropriate for children, many of whom surely witnessed the episode. It does not seem unfair that this message-ridden spectacle should be treated less generously than the typical run-onto-the-field case. A very reasonable conclusion could be made that, unlike the fan so taken with the vitality of the moment, both the existence and content of the message showed a thoughtful and planned course to violate the law.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

No comments: