In a recent pre-trial hearing in Xenia, Ohio, a judge agreed with a prosecutor’s motion to prohibit the defendant from mentioning the Constitution or the constitutionality of the law he was charged with violating.
Judge Catherine Barber stated “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution” to the defendant, Virgil Vaduva.
The prosecutor made the claim that mentioning the Constitution “will confuse the jury,” to which Vaduva replied that uttering words on a public sidewalk, his panhandling charge, constitutes free speech.
MOVE TO PAGE 2:
what?!!! that is ridiculous!
Wow! This is absurd!
Outrageous
Screw that judge this is a free country
Friggin democrat no doubt.
Need to read the statute. How restrictive on protected rights? How specific as to what conduct is prohibited or regulated. Loitering as a criminal offense has been held uncons$#%&!@*utional but defiant tresp$#%&!@* Cons$#%&!@*utional. No easy short answer. Not saying I think pan handling is OK only that court has jurisdiction to hear that claim. But it MUST be raised as motion BEFORE trial to allow state the opportunity to appeal if statute ruled uncons$#%&!@*utional because once dismissed in midst of trial, jeapordy attached and prohibits a retrial.
Thank you Bill Schmidt. I appreciate your explanation! I see your point. Unfortunately the news from any side usually takes everything out of context. The truth of the matter is probably in the transcript.
Fire and disbar her
The incident is unimportant if the cons$#%&!@*utional value of all laws are denied
Sad, very sad. . .