ILNews

Safety vs. free speech

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In her 15 years on both the state and federal benches, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson has had only one time when she’s feared for her safety inside her courtroom.

That was when a criminal defendant threatened and charged at her after the then-Marion Superior judge had just denied that he be released on his own recognizance.

“Fortunately, the court line officers moved immediately and subdued him somewhat peacefully,” said the judge, who left the state bench to become a federal magistrate three years ago and is now a judge in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. “But the part that scared me most of all was when he took off, and his lawyer ran to the opposite end of the courtroom … You wonder what might happen.”

That is the concern for any judge who faces danger regularly from unhappy litigants and wonders whether the next written or spoken threat could be the one that means real-life peril. You never know.

magnus-stinson-jane-mug Magnus-Stinson

With that uncertainty, a federal case out of Brooklyn takes on an important message in how judicial safety intersects with someone’s free speech rights. Three 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges – Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer – say they felt threatened when a New York blogger wrote online that the trio should be killed for their June 2009 decision that upheld a Chicago gun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states.

Specifically, blogger Hal Turner read the ruling and then criticized the judges, saying they were “traitors” and “tyrants.” He also wrote that the reason so many judges ignore the U.S. Constitution is because “… they have not, in our lifetime, faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience. Let me be the first to say this plainly, these judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty; a small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”

The U.S. Attorney in Chicago argued that the online posts amount to threats, that Turner saying that the judges “deserve” to be killed is a threat to actually go kill them. Turner argued that is his opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment.

His first two trials – in December 2009 and in March 2010 – ended in mistrials after the juries couldn’t reach a decision. A third trial began Aug. 9 and continued that entire week.

Turner testified that his comments were no more than political hyperbole and protected speech. He also testified that it was not a call for action against the judges, who were not harmed and had previously testified they hadn’t increased their security because of the comments.

But the prosecution worked to show Turner’s comments – combined with the posting of the judges’ office addresses, photo of the building where they worked, and a map of the area – amounted to an attempt to motivate an attempt to harm the judges and provide the information to facilitate that.

Posner-Richard-mug Posner

The judges testified that that they took his postings to be threat on their lives but that they hadn’t requested additional security at any point because of them.

Turner faces up to 10 years in prison; a jury found him guilty Aug. 13 of threatening to kill or assault the judges.

To Indianapolis-based First Amend-ment attorney Dan Byron, the case doesn’t present much question that Turner’s conduct was over the line.

“Normally, you can have some great defenses on the First Amendment, and caselaw has upheld laws on strong and outrageous speech against those running for office … even judges,” he said. “But there are limits, and this is a different situation. Just like you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, caselaw is very clear that you can’t advocate the killing of a person.”

Without any connection to the case or particular knowledge of the Turner case, Byron said he views this as a clear example of someone going too far. Posting the judges’ addresses and location photos of where they work shows the intent, he said.

In the greater context of judicial safety, he understands the potential concern if the jury wasn’t able to determine this kind of conduct was over the line and might be permissible under the First Amendment.

“This is a pretty scary thing, and in my opinion it goes beyond the bounds of free speech,” Byron said.

But that case aside, Indiana judges say the legal community and court system are still on edge and trying to stay more mindful of safety following a 2005 shooting of an Atlanta judge and another that year in Chicago, where an unhappy litigant broke into the home of Northern District of Illinois Judge Joan Lefkow, lurked in the basement, and shot her husband and mother before committing suicide. Threats against federal judges hit record-setting paces following that, and many turned more attention to the lapses in security inside and outside a courthouse.

Easterbrook-Frank-mug Easterbrook

The U.S. Marshal’s Service reports that thousands of judges have installed security systems at their homes in recent years and a majority in Indiana have opted for that, while the office nationally investigated nearly 1,400 threats and inappropriate communications against judges during fiscal year 2009.

Judge Magnus-Stinson said she feels safe in the federal courthouse in downtown Indianapolis. She met with the Southern District’s newly confirmed marshal, Kerry Forestal, shortly after her own judicial confirmation and voiced her appreciation for the level of safety in the courts. She also suggested that he look at the multiple courtrooms and explore the placement of marshals in each one, and that he do reviews on escape prevention and judicial safety overall.

That time Judge Magnus-Stinson faced danger while on the bench came in 2003 in the case of State of Indiana v. Schroeder, No. 02189466. That defendant had a long history of mental-health issues, and when she issued a decision not to release him on his own recognizance, he came toward the bench and charged at her. The bailiff protected her, and she ultimately requested personal protection from the sheriff’s office after that and recused herself from the case.

Aside from that, she has received other threats from time to time. She noted one letter that referenced her children; the prosecutor sought stalking charges and obtained convictions on that matter.

“We are always keeping up with tools and trainings on how to manage our safety,” she said. “That’s indicative of the level of priority that our system places on safety. That’s something you always have to be vigilant about, keep your guard up and be responsive to whatever happens.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  2. Low energy. Next!

  3. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  4. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  5. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

ADVERTISEMENT