2000px-Singapore_Road_Signs_-_Restrictive_Sign_-_No_jaywalking.svgBe careful when crossing the street.
Oh, and under no circumstances, do you want to exercise your right to free speech on Facebook.
Trial Judge Lynn Norton prompted Assistant Ada County Prosecutor James Vogt to move for a mistrial during the opening argument of defense counsel Aaron Tribble after Townsend’s attorney mentioned that the original arrest involved an alleged jaywalking violation, and that Townsend is now charged with a felony for complaining about the arrest on Facebook.
As before Vogt stated the reasons for his objection, Norton instantly asked the prosecutor: “Are you going to move for a mistrial?” Tribble pointed out that the charge had been described as a felony, and that the size of the jury – fourteen panelists, evenly divided between male and female – made it clear that the offense being considered was a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Vogt protested that the instructions to the jury do not permit them to be informed of, or take into account, potential sentencing options, and contended that they likewise “cannot take into account the degree of the offense.”
The Idaho Rules of Criminal Procedure do not address that question. Courtroom spectator A.J. Ellis, who recently served jury duty in neighboring Owyhee County, told The Free Thought Project that “during jury selection we were explicitly told that the case before us dealt with a misdemeanor offense.” Several trial attorneys contacted for comment by The Free Thought Project in multiple states likewise reported that a mistrial on the grounds cited by Vogt at Norton’s prompting struck them as a novelty.
What a waste!
It’s clearly a case of police harassment.
The guy jaywalked.
Ok, fine him.
So he complained on Facebook about how the police mistreated him.
How does this rise to a felony charge?
Then the ultimate travesty, a mistrial is declared because no one can figure it all out.
And everyone gets to return to court and do it all over again?