US Dept. of Justice is literally prosecuting a woman for laughing at Jeff Sessions

[Benton]

(07-17-2017, 10:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The legal argument would be that the jury was given inaccurate information or instructions.  The crux being that the prosecution misrepresented the facts of the case or law.  Of course, that kind of argument should be made by defense counsel.  Not sure how it's the prosecutions fault that the defense failed to do their job. 



Judges are human, and thus susceptible to standard human failings.  She wasn't charged with laughing, the laughing is what got her booted from the hearing.  She was charged for the scene she made after she was booted.  This case does jive well with the theme of the past year or so though, if you don't like the results of the first trial/election then just throw all your efforts into delegitimatizing the result you don't like and try, try again.  You see it here, with Trump and with Brexit.

I'm getting confused.

Quote:Kimberly Paschall, an attorney for the government, argued during a court hearing on Friday that “Ms. Fairooz was not merely responding” to her arrest. “She wasn’t just merely responding, she was voicing an opinion,” Paschall said.


The government argued that the jury’s guilty verdict should be upheld. Paschall had argued in court filings that the government had “presented evidence that the defendant engaged in disorderly or disruptive conduct when she loudly laughed at Senator Shelby’s comments.” Jurors “could reasonably infer that the laugh was a deliberate disruption” and “intentional,” Paschall wrote.

I had previously thought she was arrested for the things she said after, but the assistant US Attorney is saying — at least here — that it was the laugh that got Fairooze in trouble.

I don't have any issue with them prosecuting her for comments made after she was asked to leave. And I don't have any issue with her being asked to leave for laughing. But to prosecute for laughing is a bit much.