UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Criminal No. 84-00252
Judge Joyce Hens Green
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WILLIAM THOMAS :
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, et . al
AUG 28, 1984
JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk
DEFENDANT PICCIOTTO'S SUPPLEMENTAL;POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
On June 27, 1984 this Honorable Court provisionally granted the defendant's request for a trial by jury. In light of the government's motion for trial by the Court, Defendant Picciotto hereby formally submits the following points and authorities in opposition to the government's motion.
The inclusion of a right to trial by jury in the Constitution not only in the Sixth Amendment, but also in the Article constituting the federal courts, "reflects a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and administered." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155 (1968). Although both Article III and the Sixth Amendment speak in terms of "all Crimes" and "all criminal prosecutions," the courts have recognized an exception to this comprehensive language for "petty offenses". See District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (l937); District of Columbia v. Colts, 282 U.S. 63 (1930) (holding reckless driving jury triable in the District of Colummbia); United States v. Craner, 652 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1981) (dunk driving in National Park is jury triable).
No offense punishable by more than six months imprisonment is petty. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970). Offenses punishable by lesser penalties are not petty "if other special circumstances are present. " United States v. Thomas, 574 F.Supp. 197 (D.D.C. 1983). This case is virtually indistinguishable from Thomas which, indeed, involved one of Ms. Picciotto's co-defendants in the case now before this Court. As this Court well knows, Thomas involved a different Park Service regulation, 36 C.F.R. Section 50.19 (e) (8) (i); however, the conduct involved is virtually identical, and raises the same issues under the First Amendment.
As this Court stated in Thomas, "(i)f the fact finder rules against the defendant on that element and the other elements of the offense, that decision could have a chilling effect on a variety of future protest activities by defendant and ethers. This is a serious collateral effect which distinguishes the crime chaarged here from the petty.
"More directly, incarceration would both detain defendant and, for its duration, silence [her] protest " Id. at 198-199. As this Court did in Thomas, this Court should grant Ms. Picciotto a trial by jury.
/s/Phyllis B. Tatik
PHYLLIS B. TATIK
GEORGETOWN CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLINIC
605 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was personally served upon Assistant United States Attorney E. Thomas Roberts, Pamela Stuart Room 3836 United States Court house, John Marshalll Plaza, Washington, D. C. 20001, this 28th day of August, 1984.
/s/Phyllis B. Tatik