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:
U must be nuts
Cant do that
Soooo in a court of law, you’re not allowed to talk about the law? What pot is she smoking?
Well, it would ‘confuse’ [con[m]=together/with + fuse=to mix so that parts become one] the jury. This woman said in open court that she wishes for the jury to not make a ruling.
If there is anything to this it will be grounds for an appeal.
How can a public official ban the very Document they took an Oath to protect ? Talk about liberal wack brains.
Fire that judge.
Yeah, no….
Foolish judge, the Defendant will have a great right to appeal, perhaps even having the charges thrown out.
I know people who live there its awful . I bet people don’t even know the real reason the judge is doing this . They need it on record so they can use this trial in other casas. They are trying to set a standard for future cases.