Friday, September 17, 2004

The Trial

By Rosemarie Jackowski

“A citizen in United States should never expect to gain justice through the judicial system. The system is so corrupted that in the rare case when justice prevails, it is not because of, but it is in spite of, the system.
-R. Jackowski

At the 9th hour, of the 9th day, of the 9th month of 2004 in a court in Bennington, Vermont, the Trial began. The government’s charge was Disorderly Conduct with Intent to Harass and Annoy. These charges were the result of a peaceful anti-war demonstration, which took place on March 20, 2003. On that day, millions protested all around the world. I was one of the millions. I was arrested. Hundreds across the U.S. were arrested that day.

Think back. For the year prior to this day of protests, the government of the United States had consistently threatened to use nuclear weapons. The Pentagon had released its Revised Nuclear Posture Review, which listed seven countries on its nuclear hit list. Millions of fellow human beings were being loudly and clearly threatened with a nuclear attack by the government of the U.S. In an effort to raise the global anxiety factor, the U.S. arrogantly publicized its terroristic plans for The Shock and Awe Campaign.

A year and a half later, after many delays and postponements, my not-so-speedy trial by jury finally began. Some brief testimony was given. The case was then turned over to the jury. After deliberating for 10 minutes, the jury rendered a unanimous verdict of guilty. At that very moment, I became a convicted criminal.

In the real world, my guilt or innocence will be a matter of debate for long time. In the world of legal technicalities, experts disagree. There is NO debate about the fact that my trial was not fair or speedy.

Some questions that remain unanswered are:

1. Since part of the charge was INTENT, the government had to prove what was in the mind of the defendant. Why was the defendant not given ample opportunity to explain her intent?

2. Why was the defendant never given an opportunity to simply explain, to the jury, in her own words, exactly what she had done and why she had done it?

3. Why is it permissible for the judge and the lawyers on both sides to meet in chambers, while the defendant is excluded? I call that collusion. The system calls it S.O.P. My criticism is directed toward the system, not toward any individual. I am grateful to my pro bono attorney who took this case because he believed that I was innocent.

4. Why were there so many sidebars, which also excluded the defendant?

5. Did the members of the jury understand that, in an attempt to NOT harass or annoy, the defendant stepped out of the line of march and stood on the sidewalk for a time? The defendant did this in an attempt to allow traffic to proceed.

6. Why were the members of the jury never allowed to see the video of the protest that was provided by the defendant? The video showed what the defendant actually did.

7. If a trial is supposed to be an attempt to get at the truth, why did the government refuse to provide the protest sign that the defendant was holding during the protest. The sign showed what was on the defendant’s mind at the time of the arrest. At the time of the arrest, the sign was confiscated by the police and held as evidence in the police evidence room for a year and a half. At the trial, a subpoena had to be issued, because the government did not want the jury to see the protest sign. That might be the first time in history that a sign had to be subpoenaed.

8. Why were the members of the jury not permitted to see the photos of the bombed Iraqi civilians? The defendant testified that she was thinking about the bombed children at the time of her alleged crime. The jurors should have been allowed to see the photographs in order to understand the intent of the defendant. The rules of evidence need a complete overhaul. Evidence should never be kept from a jury because of its inflammatory nature. Maybe Jack Nicholson said it all, when he said, “You can’t handle the truth.” The judicial system, as it now stands, not only disallows relevant evidence but it allows the discussions about the evidence to take place behind chamber doors, in secret.

Many other questions remain unanswered. Statements made by many citizens, the prosecuting attorney, and others, indicate that they all thought that this trial would never happen. For a year and a half, local folks complained that they thought that it was a waste of taxpayer money. One juror was quoted in the Bennington Banner as saying, “I almost thought my time was wasted. I was put up just so she could make a point.” To that juror I would say, “No, Mr. Juror, it is NOT the defendant who decides which cases should be prosecuted.” It is important to note, that in any case of frivolous prosecution by the government, a hostile jury might show its dissatisfaction with the system by rendering a guilty verdict.

For the record, I would like to state exactly what I did that led to my arrest. I stood, silently with my head bowed holding a sign. Those were the most solemn moments of my life. I was standing in the middle of the main intersection in town. Traffic was delayed. There is no dispute about what I did. The road was blocked because there were many, perhaps hundreds of people, in the street. The crux of the legal case rested on what my INTENT was.

Moments after the jury rendered its verdict, the chief prosecutor for the government is quoted as saying in an interview in the Rutland Herald, “I don’t doubt that she had a GOOD INTENT...” Would that statement constitute prosecutorial nullification of the jury’s decision?

Events that occurred during the trial are very reminiscent of the short story The Lottery, which was written by Shirley Jackson and is studied by most high school students. Ironically, that piece of literature was written years ago, by an author living in the same community that was the location of this trial. The subject of the short story is the culture and prejudice that exists in a small New England town.

The reason that I committed my Act of Obedience to a Higher Authority is because I wanted people to know the horrors of war. I wanted them to see what was on my protest sign...the photograph of a bombed Iraqi child, the list of countries that the U.S. has bombed since WW2, the list of U.S. war crimes as compiled by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, etc.

Whatever happens to me, in the end, is not very important. I wrote this article because it may be useful for others to have a little glimpse into the judicial system. The most important thing to remember is that, since the day of my arrest, more than 13,000 innocent Iraqi civilians were given capital punishment by the U.S. Not one of them had a trial.

I will continue to do everything in my power to get the message out. During breaks, at the trial, I worked on the members of the press and TV who were there covering the trial. I asked them all to publish the photos of the bombed Iraqi children and other slaughtered civilians. WRGB is the CBS affiliate in the Albany, N.Y., area. That night on the WRGB TV news broadcast, news of the trial was a topic and photographs of the bombed Iraqi children were shown. That may be one of the first times that such photos have ever been in the U.S. media. This was a victory. I had finally achieved my goal.

No one will ever know if the beautiful little Iraqi girl in the pink dress would have grown up to be the one who would find a cure for cancer or what other contribution to humanity she would someday make. No one will ever know, because her life was taken away by a cluster bomb. All of the people who are now living on the planet have a moral obligation to that little girl and to all of the civilians killed in Iraq and all around the world. We, you and I must right the wrong that was done by our government in our names. The burden of guilt will remain on all of us until we get justice for the slaughtered civilians.

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. She is currently awaiting sentencing, with the possibility of prison. She can be reached at dissent@sover.net.

More from Rosemarie Jackowski

Comments (4)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Remember When Presidential Campaigns Used to Be About the Issues? -->

<-- Previous: Bad Moon Rising

Support Press Action