<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
<a href="http://supportrod.org/?page_id=50" eudora="autourl">
http://supportrod.org/?page_id=50<br><br>
<br>
</a>For immediate release September 17, 2007<br><br>
Contact: Karen Pickett on-site cell: 510-316-2722; message phone
510-548-3113<br><br>
Closing Arguments in Coronado Free Speech Trial on Monday<br><br>
Case expected to go to jury by Monday afternoon<br><br>
San Diego, CA- Attorney Tony Serra for the defense and the government’s
attorney will present closing arguments in activist Rod Coronado’s First
Amendment trial at 9 a.m. Monday morning in room 16, 5th floor of the
Federal District Court, 940 Front St., San Diego, California. Preceding
closing statements, the judge will issue jury instructions. The case will
then be in the hands of the jury.<br><br>
On Thursday Sept. 13, testimony of a San Diego police officer present at
the speech at issue, was impeached, as a key piece of new evidence was
introduced. After undercover San Diego counter-intelligence cop Joseph
Lehr insisted that Coronado responded to a question about making a “bomb
for an action,” a recently-surfaced audio recording clearly established
that the question from the audience on August 1, 2003 did not include the
words “bomb” or “for an action.” The exact wording of the question
following the environmental speech is central to the case, since
government charges are based on Coronado’s answer.<br><br>
The government is prosecuting Coronado under an obscure statute (18 USC §
842 (p)(2)(A)), which makes it a crime to demonstrate how to build a
destructive device with the intent that it be used in furtherance of a
crime of violence. They say he intended to foment criminal activity based
on his answer, and that his speech is not protected by the First
Amendment. In order to deny that protection, however, the government must
prove his intent.<br><br>
The Supreme Court has carved out three famous exceptions to free speech:
the “fighting words” exception (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire), the
obscenity exception (Miller v. California), and the “clear and present
danger” exception (Brandenburg v. Ohio). However, each exception is
extremely limited. The Brandenburg decision states the incitement to
violence must be imminent—unlike, one assumes, the public call for
assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez by Christian
fundamentalist and broadcaster Pat Robertson in 2005.<br><br>
After the audio recording played for the jury with a transcript on screen
on Thursday, the defense called as a witness Cari Shaw, the young woman
who actually posed the question. She corroborated the words on the
recording as a question about how an incendiary device is made, and
testified that her impression was that Rod’s explanation of incendiary
devices was a recital of his and others’ acts of the past, rather than a
specific call to action. Two subsequent witnesses, also present at the
2003 speech, both testified to an absence of incitement to immediate
action by Coronado’s words.<br><br>
The jury seated in this case includes seven women and five men, with two
alternates, one Hispanic male and one Caucasian female. The jury includes
one African-American, one Hispanic, one Filipino; the remaining jurors
assumed to be Caucasian.<br><br>
A press conference will be held in front of the courthouse after the
verdict is delivered. Press packets with background information are
available electronically and at the courthouse through Karen
Pickett.<br><br>
More info at
<a href="http://supportrod.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://supportrod.org<br><br>
<br>
</a></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>