Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

As explained to you many times it was not assault. Everybody involved knew it was a Subway sandwich and knew it was incapable of causing any harm.

It was an open and shut public littering case but did not meet the definition of assault. Oh, and the officer lied on the stand by saying it exploded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

DP. It is permissible though. The administration made that clear when the J6 criminals who attacked police with actual weapons were pardoned and hailed as patriots. DC juries did a lot of work for years ago bringing indictments and convicting those people. For a DC jury to now refuse to convict a guy who threw a sandwich is following the precedent set by the Republicans. Can’t have it both ways.

Great. Now Trump AND the people of DC are on record condoning violence against police. Who do you think is going to pay the price? You really showed him!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

DP. It is permissible though. The administration made that clear when the J6 criminals who attacked police with actual weapons were pardoned and hailed as patriots. DC juries did a lot of work for years ago bringing indictments and convicting those people. For a DC jury to now refuse to convict a guy who threw a sandwich is following the precedent set by the Republicans. Can’t have it both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

Try calling the police anywhere and reporting that you were hit by a sandwich. After laughing at you, they will hang up…and laugh some more.

The fact that dc residents won't indict clearly video'd assaults on law enforcement shows that the city turns the other way on crime and needs to be fixed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

Try calling the police anywhere and reporting that you were hit by a sandwich. After laughing at you, they will hang up…and laugh some more.

The fact that dc residents won't indict clearly video'd assaults on law enforcement shows that the city turns the other way on crime and needs to be fixed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

Try calling the police anywhere and reporting that you were hit by a sandwich. After laughing at you, they will hang up…and laugh some more.

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

Anonymous wrote:He’s still unemployed. Expensive sandwich.