Denver, CO -- May 20, 2002 -- Sparks flew today in a Denver Courtroom where Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley is on trial for openly carrying a firearm in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The arrest was the result of an intentional act of civil disobedience during a rally celebrating the 210th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 2001.

After wading through the usual preliminary proceedings, Defense Attorney Paul Grant moved for a twelve-man jury. This request was denied by Judge Patterson who stated Stanley would get only 6 jurors, citing a Colorado Statute.

Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room.

Grant immediately objected stating the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed Rick's right to a speedy and public trial. A trial can't be public, Grant stated, if the public is excluded.

The judge countered that there wasn't enough room for the jury pool of 18 people and the public. After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom.

As observers left the court room they were met by a posse of armed guards from the Sheriff's department who ordered them to move away from the doorway.

After the jury pool came in and were seated, the observers were allowed back into the courtroom.

During the jury selection process supporters of Stanley were shocked to discover that out of a pool of 12 prospective jurors - 5 just happened to be employed by the Plaintiff, The City and County of Denver. One prospective female jury member confirmed that she indeed was a police officer employed by the Denver Police Department.

Grant objected that these jurors should be disqualified for conflict of interest issues, the Judge did not find cause to dismiss these jurors at that time.

During the selection process Defense Attorney Paul Grant posed several questions to this Police Officer.

When asked by Grant if she could really apply the laws as explained by the judge, she replied, yes.

Then Mr. Grant asked her to confirm if she really was a police officer with the city and county of Denver. She replied, yes.

Mr. Grant then asked her if, ...when becoming a police officer, she had taken an oath to support the Constitution of Colorado and the Constitution of the United States of America?

Yes, I did. the officer replied.

Grant then asked her a hypothetical question; If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?

Pandemonium erupted halfway through Grant's question with the City Prosecutor objecting at the top of his lungs to the form of the question, as the Judge pounded his gavel for attention.

At this time Judge Patterson dismissed the jurors for lunch. After they left the courtroom Judge Patterson began to lecture Mr. Grant.

I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?

Grant replied that he did not.

Patterson said, Then I'll explain it again. You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?, questioned Judge Patterson.

Grant again replied he did not understand, and the judge proceeded to repeat his previous orders. He also stated that Mr. Grant had already violated these orders during the voir dire process when questioning the police officer.

Grant objected to the judge's statement and replied, Your honor I did not ask a question about the Constitution I asked a question about jury instructions.

The Judge then asserted, You did no such thing.

Grant countered, Yes, I did. He peered at his notes and said, Here's the question I asked her. If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?

In the presence of numerous observers, and despite an audio recording and at least one court reporter the Judge then asserted, That's not the question you asked.

At that point it was clear Judge Patterson was visibly upset. He began advising counsel that he was on dangerous grounds and threatened him with court sanctions. Patterson then recessed the proceedings for a lunch break.

As Judge Patterson left the courtroom one Stanley supporter, Mr. Joe Johnson stood and addressed those left in the courtroom, Hear Ye, Hear Ye, The Constitution of the United States of America has just been repealed by a Denver County Court Judge. Two reporters from the Denver daily papers scribbled furiously and then bolted for the doors.

The court reconvened in the afternoon and the jury selection was completed. The jury consists of 6 people, 5 women and 1 man.
The court heard testimony from both sides including testimony from the arresting officers who stated they did not fear any violence from Mr. Stanley, and that he was co-operative.

When Mr. Stanley was called by defense to testify, Judge Patterson questioned whether he really wanted to testify or not. The judge mentioned the Constitutional provision that guaranteed his ability not to testify, but when Mr. Stanley asked the judge to cite the provision the judge refused.

Throughout the afternoon's proceedings lawyers, judges, and others who apparently worked within the judicial system were seen coming in and out of the courtroom for short periods of time.

Testimony was concluded in the afternoon. Judge Patterson then recessed the proceedings to reconvene in the morning for closing arguments.

****** EMERGENCY UPDATE! ******
Stanley Found Guilty
City Attorney: Constitution of U.S. and Colorado null and void in Denver since 1906

Denver - May 21, 2002 -- This morning in a Denver Courtroom, Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful Rick Stanley was found guilty of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, in violation of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b). The charge was the result of an intentional act of civil disobedience during a rally celebrating the 210th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 2001.

The court re-convened this morning, with Judge Robert L. Patterson entering at 8:20am. Discussion of jury instructions was commenced and Patterson proposed two forms of general verdict (guilty, and not guilty -- the standard forms), and 11 separate jury instructions taken from the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. Attorney for the defense, Paul Grant, proposed four additional jury instructions. The city attorney objected to all of Grant's proposals.

The city attorney stated the standard jury instructions were good enough for him, but Grant proceeded to criticize several aspects of the instructions. He stated that the word crime is inaccurate and should be modified to say offense. In law, a violation of a municipal ordinance is not a crime -- it is an offense. The language used in the jury instructions should be accurate, Grant charged.

Grant next objected to the instructions which tell members of the jury that they will do something, or that they shall do something, or that they must do something. Grant pointed out that in a trial by jury, the jury has the last word, and that each juror's decision must be given freely, without coercion. For the court to tell someone that they must follow the law as the judge explains it is equal to denying the defendant's right to be tried by a jury.

Patterson interjected at this point, and began to lecture Grant on various points of case law. Grant countered the judge's comments citing precedents to support point of views antagonistic to the viewpoint Patterson was adopting.

At this point, according to a courtroom observer, David Bryant, The judge grew more bombastic...he was clearly asserting his position as the controlling legal authority in the courtroom.

Grant next presented arguments to support his additional jury instructions. One of these was an alternative to the standard instruction on the elements of an offense, the nature of reasonable doubt, and the meaning of culpable mental state (aka mens rea). The second argument dealt with the fact that Rick's act of civil disobedience was a form of political speech, and that the jury should not convict him just because they don't agree with his point of view.

Grant then presented two affirmative defenses to the court in the form of jury instructions. First, that Rick's actions were an form of political speech, and the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing Rick for speech.

Secondly, Grant argued, the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick's right to keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which is controlling in this case.

In response to Grant's argument about People vs. Ford, Judge Patterson replied that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed the constitution of Colorado, are not applicable within the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule city. Patterson then proceeded to reject all of Grant's motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the bailiff went to get the jury.

The jury showed up in court at approximately 9:00 AM. Closing arguments were brief. The city attorney recited the facts of the case and called on the jury to convict Rick because Rick had no real need to defend himself that day in the park.

Grant reminded the jury of their important role in our system of justice. He spoke briefly about the history of trial by jury, calling the jurors defenders of liberty. Grant laid particular emphasis on the fact that the city did not meet their burden of proof on the issue of a culpable mental state, as Stanley was not present that day in the park with criminal intent. Grant stated that Stanley was there to, assert his rights, and to defend the rights of all citizens of Colorado.

The jury retired to deliberate about 9:20 AM.

At this point, David Bryant, who is the current Public Information Director for the Libertarian Pary of Colorado, approached the city attorney to clarify his understanding of Judge Patterson's remarks when he ignored Grant's argument based on a state Supreme Court ruling.

As I understand it, stated Bryant, Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding, also? Bryant asked. Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver? Bryant questioned further.

Yes, said the city's attorney. The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city.

Bryant then told him, politely, that that was an absolute abomination. He stated he pays taxes, to pay thousands of dollars each year so that this lawyer could protect his rights. And there you are telling me I have no rights at all? I am outraged.

Bryant then stated to the attorney that he would do everything in his power to alert the citizens of Denver to this travesty and he would take this issue directly to the voters.

The attorney replied that that's fine with him, but until the law is changed he will enforce it as written. He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution has no force or effect in this city, and it's been that way since 1906.

The jury finally came back after deliberating for approximately one hour. Their verdict -- guilty -- was read to the court. Grant at that point requested that the jury be polled and each one of the 6 declared him guilty. At that point the judge thanked them for their service, read them the final standard instruction stating that they could discuss this case with others, if they want to. The jury was then dismissed.

Grant moved for an immediate sentencing. Patterson denied that motion. After some delibertation, the sentencing hearing was set for July 25, 2002. The court was then adjourned.

As of the writing of this report, Rick Stanley, Libertarian U.S. Senate hopeful has been convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon, and is free on bail until the court imposes a sentence on July 25th.