Another Queens jury didn't accept the District Attorney's argument that protesters committed any crime back in November of 2011 when we marched on the 103rd NYPD Precinct, second in Queens in stop-and-frisks.  To two counts of Obstructing Government Administration, they said, NOT guilty.  But they could not get past the idea that the police ordered people to move -- even if it was not a lawful order -- and convicted Greg, Noche, Ribka and Matt of disorderly conduct, a violation.  They will be sentenced on July 18.

Any time the prosecutors slink out of a courtroom, it's cause for celebration, and we are glad there were no criminals convictions. Attorney Marty Stolar, part of the legal team who defended the freedom figthers, said tonight, "I am satisfied with the verdict but also disappointed. I wanted the whole thing."  There was no lawful order for protesters to be dispersed, and they should not have been convicted.

A most interesting scene developed outside the criminal courts building afterward.  Although one alternate juror declined to speak to us, and another juror said "no comment" as to her thoughts on stop-and-frisk after two weeks of hearing about it, 4 jurors and one alternate hung out for quite awhile with defendants, attorneys, and supporters.  There were hand-shakes and hugs.  They said, as jurors in the last case said, that they were most concerned that our defendants not get any jail time.  "You all are great people!"  They wanted to finally meet the defendants, and attorneys, and learn more background.

Discussing stop-and-frisk outside Queens Criminal Court. Attorney Steve Silverblatt; defendant Ribka Getachew, and attorney Mani Taferi speaking with juror.An older African American man was most outspoken and warmly hugged defendants.  We asked if his opinion of stop-and-frisk had changed, and he said yes.  "I still think it could do some good.  But it's so unfair how only certain groups of people are stopped."  Another juror said the defendants, and our attorneys, were "really interesting, honest people, but we didn't like the police or the District Attorney's attitude."  She said the contempt for the defendants showed by the D.A's alienated the jury, a fact they talked about in deliberations.

The jurors asked to know more about our movement, and got flyers about the Stop Mass Incarceration Network.  All said that the experience of the trial had given them a lot to think about in terms of how the courts and police work.  A very basic question they asked: why did they system spend two weeks trying people for something that was completely non-violent and lawful, when there are real crimes being committed?

There are still five defendants to be tried on these same charges: Elaine Brower, Calvin Barnwell, John Hector, Richie Marini, to be tried Tuesday July 8, and Christina Gonzalez, whose case has been severed and is not yet scheduled for trial.  We have no expectation that the DA will drop the OGA charges.

There is MUCH more to learn from the scene in Queens.  The controversy over stop-and-frisk in the city, particularly the Floyd v City of New York lawsuit in federal court, and the way in which the NYPD's policy has become an issue in the mayoral race -- because it's now more widely seen as a big problem -- affected this trial.  More importantly, it shows how potentially widespread opposition to it could be, and what a responsibility we have to carry forward resistance to this practice, and to mass incarceration, so that even more people see that there is no good reason for the authorities to get away with locking up so many people.

The defense rested Friday May 31 in the case of the Queens District Attorney v Greg Allen, Noche Diaz, Ribka Getachew and Matt Swaye.  Defense attorneys moved for dismissal of both Obstruction of Government Administration and Disorderly Conduct charges on the basis that the DA had not proved there had been an government business disrupted by the protesters.  They argued that the NYPD, by barricading a city block had put the public at an inconvenience for what they claimed to know would be a non-violent protest.

In a development unusual so far in these proceedings, the judge did not immediately deny the motion regarding the OGA charges.  He said he is "holding in in abeyance" until the jury makes its decision on guilt.  He denied the motion concerning disorderly conduct charges.

Closing arguments Friday afternoon by defense attorneys Marty Stolar, Daria Aumond, Tom Hilgardner and Mani Taferi visited -- as much as allowed by the judge -- the reason the protest in November 2011 focused on the 103rd Precinct to deliver a political message against NYPD stop-and-frisk. Asst District Attorney Heyman pointed to "these four defendants" 34 times, saying they "formed a human wall to block people from entering the precinct." 

The NYPD's own videotape did not show such a human wall, and their officers did not show that any disruption had taken place, other than delay by several minutes of an officer entering the precinct.  They jury began deliberations late Friday afternoon and will continue at 9:45 am Monday.

The ten week federal civil lawsuit against the NYPD's practice of stop-and-frisk, Floyd v City of New York, ended last Monday.  We learned much about the quotas, racism, and cynical operations of the NYPD -- but it all added up to what many people already knew.  Stop-and-frisk is racist, unconstitutional and unjust.

The next day another trial of stop-and-frisk began in Queens, when four more freedom fighters were brought to stand trial for protesting at the capital of stop-and-frisk, the 103rd Precinct in Jamaica. On November 19, 2011, twenty people were arrested for standing outside the precinct doors, demanding an end to stop-and-frisk, and specifically in that precinct, which has the second highest number of illegal stops in the city. It's the precinct where NYPD killed Sean Bell in 2005, and where there's been intense harassment of trans people.

It's outrageous that Greg Allen, Noche Diaz, Ribka Getachew and Matt Swaye are even on trial. For 18 months, the District Attorney has refused to drop two counts of Obstruction of Government Administration against 13 people, even when the first group of four was found not guilty by a jury last November.  Prosecutors are bringing the same evidence, but say they hope to get a different outcome with another jury. 

It took two full days to get a six person jury and two alternates selected. So many people in the jury pool expressed opinions against stop-and-frisk that the prosecution was able to have some excluded for cause, because they said they wouldn't be able to listen to police officers and believe them.  Others who spoke out against stop-and-frisk, or had negative experiences with the NYPD, but said they could still be fair and unbiased in this case, were excluded when the prosecutor used pre-emptive challenges to exclude them. 

Of the last people in the jury pool to be questioned, four openly expressed opposition to stop-and-frisk. A young sister said she had been to protests against police brutality, and protested when Kimani Gray was murdered by the NYPD a couple months ago. She told one of those wrenching stories that breaks your heart about being abused as a child, going to court to testify against her abuser, and the prosecution not getting her abuser convicted.  A young man had friends who had been arrested during Occupy Wall Street when the police led protesters into a place, then busted them.  He didn't believe the police.  A human resources manager quoted statistics on stop-and-frisk, and said "I believe it's biased, and there is not evidence it stops crimes. Over 90% of the people stopped were doing nothing wrong, and they are almost all Black and Latino.  I think they should do stop-and-frisk on the Upper East Side (a wealthy area in Manhattan.) 

The potential juror questioned the most was a 40 year old African American train conductor.  He told of being stopped "many" times by the NYPD driving to work at night.  Our lawyer asked, "how many times have you been stopped?"  The court room -- except for the prosecutors -- erupted in laughter when he said, "you mean this year? I really couldn't even tell you."  He went on to say that his brothers, cousins, son, son's friends are all stopped a lot.  "And I do not know why.  We are all working, going about our business.  We have no records."  He said that he lives in what is called a "high crime area," and it turned out to be the 103rd Precinct.  He said that stop-and-frisk does not do any good, and he doesn't like it. 

We ended up with a jury of people born in Queens, and all over the world, who say they don't have an opinion about stop-and-frisk, with one alternate believing that it's a good practice which she is sure lowers crime, although she cannot site how. These jurors say they have never been involved in protest.  The prosecutor, who stipulated there was no violence from the protesters, is building his case on the fact that one could protest, even for a good cause, and still break the law.

Attorneys Mani Tafari, Martin Stolar, Thomas Hillgardner and Daria Aumond will argue that no laws were broken, and in fact the protesters were led, by NYPD officers, into a barricaded zone in front of the 103rd, and then arrested when they made a protest in front of the door.  The defendants will testify about why they protested stop-and-frisk.

The trial begins Tuesday, May 28, and is expected to go three or four days.  Trial support makes a big difference in front of a jury.  Join us 9:30 am Room K-15 at Queens Criminal Court.  125-01 Queens Blvd.  E/F train to Kew Gardens/Union Turnpike.

For the third time, seven remaining Brooklyn defendants appeared to have charged dismissed before a judge who had dismissed them for four protesters in the November 1, 2011 stop-and-frisk action at the 73rd Precinct.  For the third time, that judge was not on the bench.  Brooklyn prosecutors won't dismiss, and say they are ready to try the seven on disorderly conduct charges, having failed in the first two trials to have convinced judges that there were any laws broken.

So our defense attorneys are filing a written motion for dismissal, on which a decision will be given June 4. Last we heard from the prosecutors, they are still searching for evidence to get a conviction.  They won't find it, but they are dragging people into court successfully.  So far there have been 16 or 17 appearances in this case.

Four defendants are on for trial Monday in Queens: Calvin Barnwell, Elaine Brower, John Hector and Richie Marini.  Judge Lopez, who was in charge of the trial of Carl Dix, Jamel Mims, Bob Parsons and Morgan Rhodewalt last fall, denied our motion to dismiss charges against the remaining nine defendants, even though a jury found them not guilty of the criminal charges.

We're calling on everyone available to come to court Monday, or days next week as the trial proceeds, at 12501 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens.  Updates will be posted every day at this site.

Note:  This was received from the Alan Blueford Coalition back in October 2012, and we thank them, and apologize for the late posting.

The Justice 4 Alan Blueford Coalition (http://justice4alanblueford.org/) stands in solidarity with Jamel Mins, Carl Dix, Robert Parsons, Morgan Rhodewalt and their eight companions, standing trial in New York City on trumped-up charges brought by the Queens County District Attorney, Richard Brown, for peacefully protesting the unconstitutional Stop & Frisk policies of the New York Police Department.

Alan Blueford, an 18-year old black student, was murdered as the consequence of an illegal stop & frisk in Oakland, California on May 6th, 2012. Recognizing this, the Coalition has made the elimination of stop & frisk -- a de facto policy of the Oakland Police Department -- one of its five demands in seeking justice for Alan Blueford.

Countless youth and men of color have been harassed and their lives put in jeopardy by this police tactic designed to intimidate an entire generation. The Justice 4 Alan Blueford Coalition salutes all those in New York City who have taken up the battle against Stop & Frisk. We here in Oakland are watching as events unfold in New York City: every
march and every press conference, developments in each trial and lawsuit, and your struggle to legislatively end Stop & Frisk by enacting the Community Safety Act.

We call on everyone from coast to coast and in between to demand that District Attorney Richard Brown drop all charges a against these peaceful protesters, and we also ask everyone to sign the Stop Mass Incarceration petition calling for dismissal of all charges at stopmassincarceration.org/resolution.html.

by Carl Dix

The judge who handed down the sentences in the Queens’ Stop & Frisk case got personal.  I got a $250 fine, 5 days court observation and $120 court costs.  Morgan Rhodewalt got the fine, 5 days community service and court costs.  Jamel Mims got 5 days community service and court costs.  And Bob Parsons got court costs.  1st off, we shoulda gotten off with time served—no fines and no community service.  Stop & Frisk is wrong, and we were right to protest it!

In handing down these sentences, the judge said, ‘The jury saw thru Dix’s arrogance, and Rhodewalt’s false statements.’  Of course, the jury hadn’t said any of this.  The judge was really spitting his own venom at us, and he followed that up by giving Morgan and me extra punishment.

Why did the judge say I was arrogant?  Because he feels it was arrogant of me to decide Stop & Frisk was racist, illegal and illegitimate and to call on people to join a campaign of civil disobedience to stop it!  And to come into his court and say that what we did was the right thing to do.  He probably thought my statement before sentencing was also “arrogant.”  I noted that “Ray Kelly told 3 Black legislators he wanted every Black and Latino youth to be afraid they might be stopped & frisked every morning when they leave their house.”  I added, “This was wrong, and we were right to stand up and say NO MORE to this outrage.”

Morgan’s “false statement” was about his complaint to the Civilian Complaint Review Board over the police having tightened his handcuffs so tight he lost use of his thumbs for several weeks.  Before the trial, the prosecution argued, unsuccessfully, that this complaint amounted to a confession of guilt in this case.  But the jury never saw this statement, so it’s ludicrous to say they saw thru his false statements.  (There’s something to learn from this.  The complaint to the CCRB didn’t in any way deter cops from making handcuffs too tight on people they arrest, but it did serve to give the government an added way to target the defense in this charged political case.)

There’s another wrinkle to the judge sentencing me to court observation.  He said he did this in consideration of my physical condition.  Rev. Steven Phelps, the Senior Minister at the Riverside Church had offered that we could do any community service we were sentenced to could be done thru ministries at their church.  If the only issue was coming up with community service that fit my physical condition, the Riverside Church’s offer would’ve fit the bill.  The judge was essentially saying that he was going to take this arrogant Black man and make him sit in his court room, under his thumb, and maybe teach him some humility.

That won’t happen!  Stop & Frisk is still wrong.  Mass Incarceration is still racist and illegitimate.  It is right to stand up and say NO MORE to this slow genocide strangling inner city Black and Latino communities across the country!  Watching this judge operate in court for a week won’t change any of that.

by Debra Sweet

Today in Queens Criminal Court, there was first of all a battle over how the jury would be charged.  The prosecutor keeps whining that he didn't know he had to actually provide evidence to the jury on how the 103rd Precinct was disrupted during the protest a year ago.  He wanted the jury to be told they didn't have to find that any specific aspect of the functioning of the precinct had to have been obstructed to find Carl, Jamel, Morgan and Bob guilty of Obstruction of Government Administration.

They are charged with two counts, and each could carry a year at Rikers.  Of course the jury's not allowed to know that.

Defense counsel argued strongly against that charge to the jury, and won language that puts more burden on the prosecution to have proven something was disrupted.  Their problem is they didn't bring out any such evidence, save for one cop who claimed that he was 1 to 5 minutes late going into the building because there was a crowd protesting outside the door of the precinct.  And he admitted he started his shift on time after roll call.

All three defense attorneys, and the prosecutor gave closing summations today.  One by one, the defense brought out the lack of evidence from the prosecution, which has the burden of proving each element of each count beyond a reasonable doubt.  Prosecution said in pre-trial motions they would show that because of the protest, 9-11 calls went unanswered, and prisoners couldn't be transferred.  They presented no such testimony or evidence; in fact the Commander of the precinct stated to the jury that none of the normal business of the precinct was disrupted during the 7 minutes the protesters were in front of the door.  Defense was relentless in reminding the jury that the obstruction of the precinct was the NYPD's own doing.

Our attorneys, Meg Maurus, Tom Hillgardner and Marty Stolar, highlighted the intent of the protesters, as Jamel, Morgan and Carl testified Tuesday, to deliver a political message against NYPD stop-and-frisk right to the place where the policy is centered.  Marty Stolar was able to get into his argument the fact that the 103rd had the eighth highest number of stop-and-frisks in the city last year...and that's where the police who killed Sean Bell are from. 

After their summations, the prosecutor mainly relied on his index finger, pointing at "THESE FOUR MEN" repeatedly, as protesters who had "gone too far" and broken the law by refusing to leave the front of the precinct.  Since he had no evidence to call forth, he asserted this over and over, and for variety, near the end of this speech, raised his voice and told the jury, "You see how they acted, the attorneys and the defendants treated this trial as ONE BIG JOKE!" 

To the contrary, the defendants testified that they didn't plan to be arrested that day, but are always prepared to be arrested at a political protest, especially when protesting the NYPD.  It was inspiring to hear our people speak, to challenge the prosecutor, and the judge in the process of fighting what Tom Hillgardner called "a garbage case for which no one should go to jail."

Thursday morning at 10:00 am, the jury will be charged.  We hope for a verdict of not guilty on all counts.
Queens Criminal Court  125-

Friends,

We've weathered a devastating hurricane, a sudden snowstorm, and an election frenzy, yet it still remains an priority for this system to pour its resources into prosecuting people who protested against the stop and frisk policy-- a policy that is at the leading edge of brutality and repression on youth of color, and a pipeline to the penal system.  

Now going into a third week, the proceedings of the trial in which I am facing charges up to one year in jail, have been wrought with controversy.   For starters, we have been delayed for several days because of weather-related recesses on two occasions.  Two weeks ago, a juror was re-voidired after wanting to wear 'her Obama shirt' which a court officer thought indicated she might be sympathetic with our goals; and last Monday, that same juror was arrested while exiting the courthouse after refusing to sign a returned property slip for a ziploc bag that didn't contain her items.  After hearing the story of the outrageous arrest of a fellow juror, two jurors were removed because they couldn't remained unbiased.  We got back to at court yesterday morning, November 13th, and were finally able to present our case, and testify from the witness stand. We hope to see a verdict by the end of the week.

During this nodal point in the battle against stop and frisk and mass incarceration, there is a great need to continue to elevate around this front: Please continue to share this information with folks in your circle, and push this story to media outlets.  Lend your weight and voice to the effort--call in radio stations and news stations.   Sign the resolution, and help to arrange coverage of the ongoing proceedings. Tweet, Facebook, blog or Instagram about the trial, especially as we get close to rendering a verdict.   

We are mobilizing people to pack the courtroom this week -- when the defense is finally set to present our case,--and get the word out on all fronts that the case is on this week. Come out today, Wednesday November 14th to hear summations and closing arguments.  Stick around while the jury deliberates on Thursday November 15th, and be ready to mobilize as the verdict comes down. Come stand with us and put Stop and Frisk on trial! 

Pack the Courtroom for Stop and Frisk Freedom Fighters!
Wednesday November 14th & Thursday November 15th
Queens Criminal Court, Room JP1
125-01 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens Queens

Jamel Mims

Sisters and Brothers,

Sitting in the court in Queens listening to the prosecution and the judge talk about this trial isn’t about Stop & Frisk but about whether Jamel, Morgan, Bob and I ‘broke the law,’ took me back to the 1960’s and the struggle to end Jim Crow segregation.  Whites only facilities, Black people having to ride on the back of the bus or sit in the balcony in movie theaters and the lynch mob terror the enforced all this.  That’s the legacy our campaign to Stop “Stop & Frisk” stands on the shoulders of, and those prosecutors are the current day version of those who put 1960’s freedom fighters in jail, and worse.

We’re one week into this trial.  The trial is recessed till Monday,(now probably Thursday 11/1) and we have a chance to make the fact that 4 people who protested that racist, immoral policy are facing time in prison a major story in NYC and beyond.  On Monday, the prosecution will put on its major witness and show the video of the protest at the 103rd precinct. The next day, a couple of the defendants will testify.  In strategizing over these next few days, we should remember the impact our protests had last year.  Think about the youth who faced being harassed, disrespected and worse by police every day, who drew hope and inspiration from what we did.  The people who didn’t face being stopped and frisked themselves, but who were horrified to learn that people faced this treatment because of the color of their skin and felt it was wrong.  We need to figure out how to tap into all this.

Bloomberg and Kelly are doubling down on Stop & Frisk, defending it in the face of continuing exposure, mounting resistance and disagreements among the powers thqat be over whether and how to continue that policy, with elected officials and the NY Times expressing concern that the controversy over this policy is feeding broader discontent in society.  We need to reach out to the people who are disgusted by Stop & Frisk with a simple message.  “If you don’t like Stop & Frisk, then you need to have the backs of the people who stood up against it and are facing time in jail for that righteous stand.”

How do we do that?  One way would be for some of us to come out to the next day of the trial when a press conference and rally is planned, and for all of us to reach out to our networks and encourage everyone we can reach to come out in support of these defendants.  We all have various platforms we could use in doing that.  Some of us could get this story into various media.  (Jamel and I are available for interviews if you’d like to have a defendant involved in the story, altho’ it’d be fine for you all to be the person interviewed.)  There are different audiences we all could speak to about the trial.  There are other ways we could generate support for this trial.  We should use all of the platforms available to us to the max.

Here are crucial things people could do to manifest their support:

• Come out to the trial (whenever the court opens - see stopmassincarceration.org for updates)
• Add your name to the resolution calling for dropping the charges.  www.stopmassincarceration.org/resolution.html;
• Get the story of this trial into the media;
• Spread the word on it via e mail, twitter, Facebook, etc;
• Contribute money and support the fundraiser on Oct 30th to help meet the mounting expenses of fighting this important legal battle.

In setting out to do this, we should be guided by something we said when we took on Stop & Frisk in Harlem last year:  “We Won’t Stop till We Stop “Stop & Frisk!””

Carl Dix
[email protected]

by Carl Dix

The first day of our trial for protesting stop-and-frisk in Jamaica Queens last November went slower than at least I anticipated.  We didn’t even finish jury selection.  The prosecution announced they won’t put on their main witness till Monday, which means we won’t get to the defense case till Tuesday, Oct 30th.

The prosecutor and judge said often that this case isn’t about stop-and-frisk, but just about whether we broke the law.  This has me wondering, “Why are we here facing 2 years + in jail?”  The laws we’re charged with breaking all speak about our intent.  The Obstruction of Government Administration charges, which each carry a year in jail penalty, include language along the lines of ‘…acting with the intent to keep a public official from performing their duty.’  Our intent was and is crystal clear—to protest stop-and-frisk.

This discussion about the case not being about stop-and-frisk confused some of the prospective jurors.  Several of them asked how they were supposed to separate the protest from what we were protesting.  Of course, the prosecution eliminated them from the jury using their pre-emptive challenges.

The court told prospective jurors they had to decide our guilt or innocence without considering what our punishment could end up being.  In other words, "don’t worry about the fact that we’re trying to put these people in jail for 2 years for protesting a racist, illegitimate policy.  Just think about whether the way we have charged them several times for a single act can be justified by our tortured logic and fit within our rules.  We’ll handle bringing the hammer down on them and delivering a message to any who drew hope and inspiration from their actions that there’s a heavy price to pay for standing up to what they do to us."

Carl