My (Brief) Thoughts on the Moral Monday Prosecutions
For reasons still unknown to me — I’m assuming the resumed trial (and yesterday’s conviction) of NC NAACP chairman Rev. William Barber II — I’ve gotten near-nonstop flak this week over my involvement defending some of the 900+ people arrested by the Government during the Moral Mondays protests at the North Carolina General Assembly.
Which normally wouldn’t be that annoying (I have strongly opinionated friends ), except that this go-round it’s been a bombardment from all over the political spectrum.
My conservative friends had long ago labeled me a pariah for defending “Commies, hippies, and other people who don’t bathe” as one person put it. The very first time I mentioned thinking about helping, one of my good friends from undergrad simply replied “oh you better not!”1
But then this week I’ve also had several liberals asking me “who thought everyone getting arrested was a good idea?” and “what were they thinking?” and “tell me what this all accomplished?” — as if I played any role in the protests themselves or cared an iota about the movement’s success-or-lack-thereof.
And there’ve even been what I’d consider the apolitical folks, who are just plain flummoxed that people can still be arrested (and convicted! ) for things like self-evident political speech, and more flummoxed still that similarly situated protestors could end up with totally different verdicts in their respective cases.
So when I got an email over the listserv earlier today from a well-respected attorney helping with the defense, pontificating over how best to advance the politics of the Moral Mondays protests, I did one of these and typed an almost-ALLCAPS rant in response…
…then I took a few deep breaths, removed the inflammatory stuff,2 and sent the following:
From: T Greg Doucette
To: MM Lawyers Listserv
Date: December 5, 2013 @ 11:21 AM
RE: UpdateI’d respectfully argue that whether “a litigious approach [is] the best way” for “helping the advancement of the MM issues” is a minor side issue, because what’s going on with these cases long ago transcended the Moral Monday stuff and is now about the bedrock principles of a free society.
Now I’ll concede up-front that (1) I’m just a baby lawyer and (2) I’m an unabashed Republican who didn’t participate in the Moral Monday protests and agrees with very very (very) few of the items the group was promoting. So take this entire email with several grains of salt as each of you sees fit.
But the whole reason I agreed to take on any of these cases was because it seemed mind-bogglingly outrageous to me that North Carolina taxpayers could be arrested en masse for obvious political speech in the very legislative building paid for by those very taxpayers for the very purpose of hashing out political issues. Even if I wholly disagreed with the content of their speech, I’d never try to have someone locked up over it (if for no other reason than I’d like to have the option of protesting one day when the political pendulum inevitably swings in the other direction).
It’s the kind of shameless abuse of power I (naïvely) figured the government would have stopped doing a long time ago after taking ConLaw in law school. It’s outrageous regardless of which party’s in power. And the Judiciary, at some level, needs to weigh in and remind the Executive Branch that jailing dissidents isn’t how we do business in the United States of America.
Anyhow, please forgive the imperious rant — thanks to everyone for their work so far, keep it up, let me know where us baby lawyers can continue helping, and let’s all pray the judges come to their respective senses on the rest of these cases
-T.
That about sums up my thoughts on these prosecutions: they’re an abomination.
Not to mention an audacious choice for a State that every April 12th celebrates the adoption of the Halifax Resolves — the first official action of any of the colonies calling for independence from Britain (talk about a protest!).
And while the initial arrests were wrong, I’d argue the prosecutions are worse; unlike police, District Attorneys are lawyers who (at least theoretically) had to learn about the Constitution and the First Amendment in order to pass the bar exam.
With the guilty convictions racking up, it seems obvious the decisions have already been made at the meat-grinder/District Court level. I just hope the Superior Court — or the appellate courts if it comes to that — correct this particular abuse of power and as a result send a message about future abuses.
Because moreso than global warming or eeeevil 1%ers or any of the other boogeymen the political Left insists will lead to my demise, this is the type of thing that causes me to lose sleep at night.
—===—
From the law:/dev/null “Excellence in Government” archives:
- My (Brief) Thoughts on the Moral Monday Prosecutions (12/05/13) [this post]
- TDot’s Tips: “Congratulations. Good luck. Don’t f*ck up.” (09/04/13)
- Trapped (03/25/12)
- F*cked by Government Incompetence (03/06/12)
- 222 years of inflation (08/06/10)
- Reason #1,516,398 why the federal government is broke (07/20/10)
- Dear NC DMV: #dobetter (07/18/10)
- Fabulous Fed Fun… (09/09/09)
From the law:/dev/null Unsolicited Commentary archives:
- My (Brief) Thoughts on the Moral Monday Prosecutions (12/05/13) [this post]
- Cognitive Dissonance at USC Law on the Availability of Legal Help (10/01/12)
- A conservative’s [brief] case for higher education funding (11/09/11)
- Cooley Law grads blame school for their own naiveté (08/12/11)
- The YLD’s incomplete approach to law school transparency (08/06/11)
- Your 1L Grades Don’t Matter (05/29/11)
- An insane weekend (01/09/11)
- Is law school really worth it? (Part II) (11/14/10)
- Is law school really worth it? My $.02 (11/13/10)
- 5 thoughts on this Shirley Sherrod foolishness (07/21/10)
- Unsolicited commentary on the legal clusterf*ck facing homosexuals (06/11/10)
- Unsolicited commentary on immigration (05/06/10)
- Supremes uphold common sense (01/22/10)
- Unsolicited commentary on Elections ’09 (11/08/09)