Legal News

Trial Begins For Man Who Said: ?These Judges Deserve to be Killed?

By Ashby Jones

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions."

– Blogger and radio talk-show host Hal Turner, in a June 2 blog post, referring to Seventh Circuit judges Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook and William Bauer, in the wake of the trio's ruling upholding two handgun bans in Chicago.

Turner’s words are scary, no doubt. But are they criminal?

That’s the question currently being teed up in a Brooklyn federal court. Yesterday, both prosecutors and defense lawyers presented their opening arguments to the jury. Earlier this year, Turner was charged with threatening to assault and murder the judges. Click here for the NYT article on the trial’s opening; here and here for previous blog posts on Turner.

According to the NYT, prosecutors on Wednesday called Turner, 47, a white supremacist and "domestic terrorist" who tried to incite others to murder.

To the defense, Mr. Turner was not only simply exercising his right to free speech, he was also a helpful F.B.I. informant.

"Mr. Turner regards federal judges as domestic enemies who should be killed," William Hogan, an assistant United States attorney, said during opening statements. "He gets off on inciting others to violence."

But one of Mr. Turner's lawyers said that his client was a journalist simply stating his opinion. "Mr. Turner was nothing but a shock jock," Michael Orozco, the lawyer, said. Orozco added that Turner had no intent to assault or murder the three judges. In fact, he said, Turner's Web postings were in accordance with guidelines the F.B.I. had set out for him as a confidential informer. At one point, Orozco said, the F.B.I. had asked Mr. Turner to ratchet up his rhetoric so he could infiltrate some of the radical networks.

Mr. Turner was "a radio personality whose hand was guided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Mr. Orozco said. "He was providing a service. This is betrayal."

Strange case, eh, LBers? Any First Amendment experts care to weigh in on whether — legally speaking — Turner crossed the Rubicon of impermissibility?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 03, 2009 (boomark / email).