Pete Eyre from Liberty on Tour reports from the first day of the jury trial of Bob Constantine, an NH native accused of growing some cannabis plants and facing up to seven years in prison for it:
Lots happened today – it was the most-active “courtroom” day I’ve been to. The below is a very rough overview based on notes I jotted down. Check the links for other writes-ups and related content. We’ll likely chop up a video(s) in the near future (since we’ll likely collect more video over the next couple of days the trial is expected to last).
NORTH HAVERHILL, NH – Running on about 90-minutes of sleep Ademo and I jumped in Ian Freeman’s car this morning and, along with our bud Amish Paul, drove almost two hours to the northern edge of Grafton County and joined over 20 others to support Bob Constantine – a peaceful individual who is being threatened with three to seven years in a cage for allegedly having on his property some plants strangers deem “illicit.” Rather than take a plea deal, he’s standing for what he knows is right – there is no victim. He did nothing wrong.
Facebook event: Trial: The State vs. Bob Constantine
Live updates: Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund
Free Talk Live from April 11th, 2011 (including comments by three people present at court today)(To really get to know Bob and the harassment he’s faced since September 4th, 2009 when men with badges and guns trespassed on his property, check out the five-minute Free Grafton’s Bob Constantine to be caged by New Hampshire for growing a plant video by Jason Talley.)
When we saw FIJA bumper stickers on parked cars outside a government building we knew we were in the right spot. At the entrance we were greeted by a metal detector and wanding. After a 100? walk down a hallway we were wanded a second time, just before entering the round, wood-paneled, sunken-floor room where, over the course of the day, a man wearing a black robe proved the nonexistence of the “rule of law.”
A printout taped to the door communicated that the man in the robe had dictated that cellphones or cameras were prohibited in the courtroom, save for the two videocameras already given approval, which for large chunks of time, were ordered to be pointed at the walls to ostensibly protect the identify of an undercover (though the turn-the-camera order was extended to all those wearing badges).
When Ian attempted to enter an aggressive bailiff named William G. Deuel, too eager to enforce the “rules,” told him he had to ditch his laptop since the judge had barred “electronics.” “No, it hadn’t,” everyone pointed out, yet Deuel was unwilling to walk the 20? to read the “instructions” for himself. After two or three questions Ian found that though Deuel claimed to believe in freedom of the press and did in fact, recognize Ian as press, he still claimed the “authority” to bar Ian’s laptop. I pointed out that the court had two computers not 50? away and Ian noted that other “electronics” existed in the courtroom. Deuel acknowledged the double-standard – that certain actions were ok for he and his colleagues yet not ok for Ian and his friends. And it seemed to sit with him just fine.
Michelle Fields, the “district attorney,” filed a lot of motions, which unsurprisingly were largely supported by the man in the robe. For example, Fields pushed to exclude Bob’s ability to even mention the penalty associated with his alleged action. Bob noted that per the Rights of the Accused he most definitely could outline the potential penalty. He also pointed out that the threat levied against him was listed on his indictment. Still, the man in the robe sided with the woman, both being paid public coffers (i.e. theft) after all.
Fields was so unprepared that she had not only failed to provide a copy of a submitted motion to Bob, but she didn’t even have a copy for him at the proceeding (until her files were retrieved). Soon after, we were treated to a 10-minute recess so Fields could complete other work she should have done in advance.
I found myself immediately outside the courtroom near four strangers with badges. I took out my pad and pen and began jotting down their names. One of the four, the farthest from me, immediately took off while the one closest spun around. The three individuals I got, who were present for the entire day, were:
Robert Martin and Chad M Morris of the Grafton County Sheriff Dept. and bailiff William G. Deuel.We went back in. Those wearing hats were told to remove them. For a while Ademo – who was wearing a black knit cap, responded to Deuel’s commands with questions. The man in the robe was summoned. He stated “Will the person wearing the hat to come down here?” Ademo started to respond then Evan, who had been sitting across the aisle a couple rows back, strolled by wearing a paper that he’d made. He stopped in front of the man in the robe and was handcuffed and kidnapped.
The jury was led in. Many of us stood for them but sat immediately when the man in the robe appeared. Opening statements started.
Fields told the jurors it was important they be present due to their “civic duty” and to “keep the justice system moving.” Bob got up and said that Fields left something out even more important – to weigh-in with their conscious. As Bob concluded, thunder cracked. I’m not religious but if I were, I’d say it was a sign:)
Bob gave a very personal and moving overview of his life, really solidifying what a good person he’s been. He talked about marrying his high school girlfriend, getting a factory job, taking night classes, working hard and making his life and the lives of those around him better. And it’s clear he’s a natural teacher across many fields. I’ll admit it – I got a little teary-eyed. It’s just crazy to think that some people want to see Bob caged or are too scared to speak against the threats levied against him.
Somehow an arbitrary political boundary known as “the state” was represented by Fields, who called her first witness – a guy who worked undercover with the Western Division of the New Hampshire Drug Task Force. He claimed to have been a cop since 1998 and actually looked like someone that would roll in non-police circles.
The second witness was J. Michael Johnson, who looked like a 5’9?, lean John Kerry-Frank Zane mix. He admitted that he and his friends stole 35 plants from Bob’s property, then sent two to their outfit in Concord for analyzation in a lab. According to Johnson, only a subsection of the plants were sent because the lab is “overworked,” causing a fellow support of Bob to laugh, then say “I pay you to do your job!” The man in the black robe then ordered BRIAN removed. As he walked out, he stated “Free Farmer Bob!” then spent the rest of the day outside with Jon, who was holding an awesome sign that said “7 Years for Gardening?”
As the witnesses were released, Ademo, Ian and I waited for them outside with cameras. Stay tuned.
Later, two plainclothes cops (one male one female) joined the proceedings. I introduced myself to the man and extended my hand. He didn’t respond verbally or non-verbally. I then introduced myself to the woman and she shook my hand. She was definitely more friendly than he, and other friends of Bob and I spent the next 5-10min. seeking conversation with them about self-ownership. The woman seemed much more receptive and at times, seemed like she was about to converse, but then she followed the lead of her older colleague and remained tight-lipped. Neither provided us their names.
When the pair abruptly left Ian Freeman and Ademo were on their tail inquiring whether they thought about the implications of their actions and pointing out that perhaps their unwillingness to identify themselves was due to the fact that they weren’t proud of their rights-violating actions. Interesting video ensued which could probably be put to the Benny Hill theme – stay tuned. The male later got into a white four door Jetta NH license 284-1645
The third witness was a “lieutenant” Hunter, who looked to me like a math professor. He admitted to leading the invasion of Bob’s dwelling. Hunter recounted how events on Bob’s property unfolded, constantly referencing the report he submitted in September 2009. Pierce – sitting on the edge of her chair – was visibly anxious and ready to pounce with another “Objection!” as Bob approached the treasonous word “constitution” when inquiring of a man with a badge if it right to enforce state “laws” that may conflict.
Bob did a great job. He was personal. He used humor to underscore his points – including pointing out to Johnson that his admittance of working on a Sunday violated a New Hampshire statute. Other witnesses admitted to breaking laws – traffic infractions or smoking marijuana – which too helped show Bob wasn’t the big bad criminal they were trying to portray him as. I saw more than one juror laugh at Bob’s remarks.
The fourth witness was a lab tech who detailed how he analyzed the two plants sent to him.
Tomorrow the “trial” continues. We’ll be there to work with all the other awesome activists to support Bob. Should be interesting…
