Chicago mayor seeks to quell dissenting voices

Up in the Windy City, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is preparing to host both a NATO summit and the G8 summit. And, since we're living in a dangerous world, new security measures are a must.

Mr. Emanuel wants to spend money on the summits without first getting approval from the City Council. He wants local police to be empowered to deputize out-of-state law enforcement officers and he wants to be able to restrict the times and locations of protests.

He claimed the requested measures would be temporary - to shut down protesters while the world's eyes were on Chicago. But, like most "temporary" government measures, the changes would have been permanent. The police want more power to deal with any possible scenario - no matter how far-fetched it might be.

Here's an idea, Mr. Emanuel, why not allow Chicago to be a shining beacon of just what the First Amendment means. You chose to have these summits come to your city; in other words, you invited the problems you foresee. Let the world see just how much the right to assemble and voice your grievances means to Americans.

The greatest threat to democracy, Mr. Mayor, is intolerance of differing opinions. Sure, free speech can be ugly. It can be rude. It can be inconvenient. But the people's dissent serves as a check on government. Instead of being afraid of what protesters might say and do while the world is watching, embrace this celebration of the Bill of Rights.

People have died in the streets of Cairo, Damascus and other cities throughout the Arab world over the last year because the authoritarian regimes would not tolerate dissent. In this country we have witnessed the orderly handing over of power for more than two centuries because dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Petty tyrants must be in control of everything. Differing opinions must not be tolerated. A true democrat embraces the cacophony of voices and celebrates the people's right to be heard.

Where was I?

The folks sitting in the pews rose to their feet as the man in the black vestments walked into the room.When he reached his seat he looked out at the crowd and asked them to bow their heads. Then he led the people in prayer - finishing it up with "in Jesus' name we pray."

Sunday morning in church?

Nope.

Weekday morning in a rural court somewhere in south Texas.

Who needs that damn First Amendment anyway?

Next thing you're going to tell me is that courts are allowing witnesses to testify with dogs in their laps or something else equally absurd.

Casting a light on the underbelly of the city

For months the Harris County District Attorney's Office fought to prevent the video of Chad Holley being beaten by members of the Houston Police Department from the public.

I'm a criminal defense attorney. It's my duty to defend the Constitution - regardless of how unpopular the cause might be. Some of my colleagues are defending the officers accused of beating Mr. Holley while he was down and defenseless.

One of my colleagues, Mr. Chris Tritico, wrote an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle yesterday in which he argued against the release of the video. He argued that the video should have been kept under wraps until the officers stood trial for their alleged misdeeds.

I was as disturbed by the images on the Holley video as anyone. That is why Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos got it right the first time. This video should have been seen for the first time in the courtroom. The court of public opinion is not the place to try these officers or anyone else.

Unfortunately Mr. Tritico aligned the interests of the Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (of which I am a boardmember) with that of the Harris County District Attorney's Office. Ms. Lykos did not "get it right" when she fought tooth and nail to prevent the public from seeing that video. Ms. Lykos wasn't concerned with whether or not the officers involved received a fair trial. That's never been the concern of the DA's office.

Ms. Lykos was scared of how the public would react to seeing what those of us in the courtroom know happens more often than anyone cares to admit. She was scared to death of how the public would react to the knowledge that those who are sworn to protect us and uphold the law are a lawless force unto themselves. She was scared that juries, having seen the video, would believe defendants who testified that they were beaten by the police. She was scared that juries wouldn't give the boys in blue the benefit of the doubt when questions arose regarding the legality of a search. She was scared juries wouldn't put their blind trust in the testimony of a police officer on the witness stand.

The release of this video, its airing and the rush to judgment by those who know better is a direct assault on the Bill of Rights. Lawyers on both sides of the docket have opined after the video was made public that these defendants will have a hard time getting a fair trial now. They are absolutely right.

The airing of the video is not an assault on the Bill of Rights. The video was obtained through the discovery process in a civil proceeding. A private citizen provided local television stations with copies of the video. The video ran on the evening news. There was no state action to deprive the officers of their right to a trial by a jury of their peers. There was no illegal search. The officers' right to remain silent was not violated.

A civil judge need not be concerned with the goings-on at the criminal courthouse. A criminal judge has no more authority than a civil judge.

The assault on the Bill of Rights is a daily battle fought at 1201 Franklin. The police, prosecutors and judges are all complicit in laying siege to our constitutional rights.

Our Constitution will be rendered a nullity the day that we take away any of the rights given to the people simply because we do not like what someone has been accused of doing. This includes the right to a public trial by an impartial jury and the fact that everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by that same impartial jury.

Our Constitution will also be rendered a nullity should we decide to ignore the First Amendment because the information may not be favorable to our position. Outside a protective order in the civil case, no agency of the state had any authority to prevent the video from being shown on the local news.

And, make no mistake about it, this is news. From a young age we are told the police are here to help and protect us. Most folks still believe that. Those of us who work in the trenches know the truth. We know that officers lie under oath. We know that officers plant evidence. We know that officers bend the truth in their offense reports. We know that officers beat and kill people. It's an ugly truth. It's a truth that I fight with when my daughters ask me about the police. If no one trusts the police society begins to break down.

I can assure Mr. Tritico that there will be twelve citizens who have no clue whatsoever what happened to Mr. Holley. There are plenty of people in this city who haven't the slightest idea what's going on outside their little bubble.

Lest anyone be confused, although I serve on the board of the HCCLA, in no way do I represent that I speak for the organization. I speak for myself.