There was some chaotic court-room drama Monday in the saga of how and whether to punish Black Lives Matter activists arrested in a Portland protest last year. It was the second time an attempt to establish a “restorative justice” alternative ended in disarray.
The original charges for obstructing a public way last July were suspended in a plea deal that aimed to create a forum for reconciliation between the activists and law enforcement. But that “restorative justice” meeting broke down in a dispute over whether the activists could be split it into two groups or, as they demanded, that they all be in the room together. That failure resulted in the prosecutors calling for a hearing to reinstate the charges.
The Portland district court was packed, with the 17 activists – all dressed in black – their supporters, their many lawyers, and a full-bore turnout by local media. At the outset Presiding Judge Paul Fritzsche tried to set a conciliatory tone, calling for renewed negotiation on a restorative justice solution.
“I understand fully the history of black people arriving in slavery in Virginia in the 1600s, so it’s been hundreds of years and I’m not going to solve those things today,” said Fritzsche. “I also understand the concern that police have that they don’t feel they are properly respected, so all of that’s worthy of discussion.”
Prosecutors reluctantly agreed, but the proposal was a non-starter for the activists, and the hearing moved ahead, fitfully. In an unusual turn, the first witness for the prosecution was a prosecutor: Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Ackerman. She’d set up the initial restorative justice meeting with activists, Portland Police Chief Michael Sauschuck, and an observer from the local chapter of the NAACP.
Ackerman: “Shouldn’t I know what the community feels, you know, are the issues that are there, if they’re there, do they exist? We have a responsibility to address them. So I really did feel like this was…”
Attorney Thom Hallett: “Objection your honor, this is just a tad self-serving”
Fritzsche: “Objection is over-ruled.”
That objection came from Thom Hallet, defense attorney for one of the activists. He argued that prosecutor Ackerman’s presence at the meeting, when the activists’ lawyers were not there, violated their constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. Judge Fritzche disagreed, saying waiver of those rights was implicit in the original plea deal.
Fritzsche later went on to say that civil rights groups often seek the lead over their lawyers in such cases, and that questions about who was in the room during the attempt at restorative justice were not paramount. Hallet objected, saying he was disturbed that the judge would speak without evidence that went to the specific case.
Hallett: “To make conclusions about this group or anything else that is going on, that is impermissible.”
Fritzsche: “I’m also deeply disturbed that you are marketing and posturing and being such a difficult attorney so get on with your next question.”
Hallett: “I move your recusal on behalf of my client, your honor.”
Fritzsche: “Granted, we’re done.”
Bailiff: “All rise!”
And that was it – the judge removed himself from the case.
After the hearing’s abrupt end, the activists continued their practice of avoiding individual interviews with the media. One of them, Salma Hassan, read a prepared statement agreed on by the group, calling the day’s events a victory.
“To judge Fritzsche we would say the generalizations made in the courtroom show that your understanding of the black experience is infantile and violent,” Hassan said, “Your inability to hear about our lives from our mouths is shameful.”
Defense attorney Hallett says the DA’s office should drop the criminal charges and, ‘pack up their bag and go home’. The prosecutors say they will press ahead with the charges – once a new judge is assigned.