10-11-04: Radical Honesty SA Appeal to Press Appeals Panel: City Press: Reitz Trial article

The judge began to take Steven’s guilty plea: “You know you have a right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself,” he said. Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do,” answered Steven. “You have a right to call witnesses in your behalf. Do you waive that right?” “Yes, I do.” “You have a right to a jury trial, a jury of your peers. Do you understand that right?” “If I had a jury of my peers, I would be found not guilty,” replied Steven. There was a pause as the judge stared at the defendant. “What do you mean?” he asked. “If I had twelve people who were really my peers they would understand my action,” Steven answered. The Judge leaned forward, his eyes piercing into mine. “This is not a guilty plea. Counsel, I thought you told the court this was a guilty plea?” I had been taken completely off guard by Steven’s statements. .. The judge motioned to the U.S. marshals. “Take the defendant and his lawyer, and put them in the holding cell until they straighten things out.” For half an hour Steven and I sat in the cell behind the courtroom as once again I explained my idea of a political, psychiatric defence. Once again he refused, feeling it was hopeless. He said he would plead guilty and answer all the judges questions the way the judge expected. We returned to court and went through the litany of rights one waives when one pleads guilty. But when the judge got to the part about a jury of peers, there was only silence. Then Steven spoke out clearly and strongly. “If I had a jury made up of people from Ellis and Fillmore Streets I would be found not guilty!” Judge Weigel was seconds from exploding. “This is not a guilty plea. I refuse to accept the plea. You are going to trial!” -- Black Rage Confronts the Law, by Paul Harris, pg 42-43

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook