Above: ABC 7 News reporter Carolyn Johnson
interviews activist Gypsy Taub outside the courtroom prior to the trial on April 23, 2013.
ADA Beams Outside Courtroom Following Conviction of Three
Nudist Activists
The San Francisco District Attorney’s office dispatched two
staff members to prosecute a trio of nudist activists who were cited for
violating San Francisco Police Code 154.
Since the matter is regarding basic citations the “trial” took place in
Department B, which is traffic court.
It is highly unusual for the District Attorney to have any personnel
appear to prosecute infraction cases in this courtroom.
Those in attendance that hadn’t been to this courtroom
before could easily see the primary purpose of Department B, which is to generate
cash for the city via fines and fees.
During the hour before the nudist case came before the court, Department
B issued demands for fines and fees to a courtroom full of traffic scofflaws
that totaled thousands of dollars. This
may explain why the Judge seemed perturbed from the start of the proceedings. The nudists weren’t going to generate much
revenue and the case was likely going to take a lot of time.
The activists on trial included George Davis, Gypsy Taub and
Trey Allen. The trio was arrested and
later cited because they were nude in public at a permitted protest on the
steps of San Francisco City Hall on February 1, 2013. This was the first day the nudity ban went into effect. Attorney Christina DiEdoardo represented the
three activists.
Attorney DiEdoardo had submitted a courtesy brief to the
court in advance of the trial. She made
objections over the arrests of the activists because the citations are an
infraction offense, not a misdemeanor or felony. DiEdoardo called the arrests, “kidnapping under color of
law”.
The case got underway at 2:30pm. The duo of ADA’s made their own case regarding the legality of
the arrests. Ultimately the Judge
refused to dismiss the case on the grounds that the arrests and detention of
the activists was illegal.
One notable difference from a typical courtroom is that
there is no court reporter. There are
microphones placed around the room and the proceedings are recorded on
audiotape. However, it was quite
noticeable that the Judge was typing on her keyboard during the entire
trial. She also frequently referred
back to her computer screen to review what she had typed.
The District Attorney presented evidence that included nude
images of the trio taken at the police station following the arrests. DiEdoardo objected stating that these images
were no indication of what her clients looked like at the protest. The Judge allowed the images to be submitted
as evidence.
San Francisco Police Officer Perez signed the citations and
as is standard protocol he was present in the courtroom to give sworn
testimony. Officer Perez stated that he
had been a SFPD officer since January 26, 2013. So at the February 1 protest he had been on the job for less than
a week. Officer Perez went on to say
that he was being trained and that is why he filled out and signed all three
citations.
The assistant district attorney turned the questioning over
to his female “clerk”. ADA Nguyen then
repeatedly talked over his clerk and presented questions she hadn’t asked. DiEdoardo objected and asked the court, “Who
is trying this case anyway”? The Judge
ordered that only one person from the District Attorneys office do the talking. From then on the clerk asked questions after
ADA Nguyen would whisper in her ear.
Attorney DiEdoardo asked Officer Perez if he had asked the
trio to provide their ID and sign the citations prior to handcuffing them and
placing them inside a police van.
Officer Perez stated that the activists refused to provide their ID or
otherwise were not asked for it at the scene because, “the situation had become
unsafe”. Attorney DiEdoardo then
introduced an image as evidence that clearly showed Taub offering her
California Driver License to another uniformed SFPD officer. DiEdoardo from then on referred to Officer
Perez’s testimony as “impeached”.
The proceeding continued with a lot of argument over the admission
of evidence, primarily photographs. The
evidence from the District Attorney was allowed, most of the evidence from the
defense was not allowed.
DiEdoardo questioned Taub about when and how she obtained
the permit for the steps, however Taub was not able to produce a copy of the
permit. The judge said it didn’t matter
anyway, because the nudity ban only exempts, “permitted fairs, festivals and
parades”. The Judge went on to say that
a protest is not a parade.
Seated against the wall in the courtroom gallery was
Assistant City Attorney Tara Smiley.
Smiley is the city attorney assigned to the case in Federal Court where
the three defendants and two others are suing the city regarding the legality
of the nudity ban.
At about 4:10pm DiEdoardo called activist Mitch Hightower to
the podium and he produced a DVD that he said contained unedited video taken at
the protest. The District Attorney
conceded that they had already reviewed the video as it had been provided
during the discovery phase of the case.
They were satisfied that Hightower had authenticated the video.
The Judge asked how long the video was and Hightower
answered, “fifty two minutes”. The
Judge gasped and then balked at being asked to view such a lengthy video. She asked Hightower in what timeframe he
took the video and when the timeframe he gave her was not exactly fifty-two
minutes she seemed even more exasperated.
The Judge announced, “We’re only here until four thirty”, as she looked
at the clock on the wall. She refused
to allow the video to be entered as evidence.
Following brief closing arguments from both sides the Judge
made an immediate ruling. She stated
that the First Amendment issues about the nudity ban are, “another case, for
another courtroom”. She found the trio
“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, issued the maximum fine of $100 for the
first offense and added on $92 in court fees for each defendant.
Outside the courtroom the assistant district attorney and
his clerk were all smiles as they walked down the hall and disappeared into a
locked office. DiEdoardo said to the
defendants, “Well, sorry guys, we lost this one”.
Later DiEdoardo informed the activists that they have the
right to appeal the convictions if they choose. Allen announced that he would prefer not to appeal, Taub plans to
appeal and Davis has not made his decision public as of this writing.
Another trial for three nudists arrested and cited at
an artistic dance performance on February 27 in Harvey Milk Plaza is scheduled
for Tuesday, June 4, 2013.
