Case dismissed? Not yet...

Over the weekend as we prepared for yesterday's hearing, we considered some legal strategies we could use to try to "win" this legal battle. But in the end, we decided to keep our focus on the basic facts, remembering that this is primarily a spiritual battle.

Yesterday morning in court, we sat through about an hour of other people's cases, many of which were dismissed "in the interest of justice." As we waited, I found comfort in the words of Psalm 112 ("...even in darkness light dawns for the upright....") while Terri was encouraged by the words of Psalm 20 ("...Some trust in chariots and some trust in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God...."). Terri had paraphrased Psalm 20 in her own words, applying it to our current situation. The mother of one of our "turnarounds" (a woman who decided not to abort her child) happened to also be in court, and she spoke words of appreciation to us as we waited.

When our names were finally called, we were hopeful that we would also hear the words "case dismissed." But instead, our case was the first one assigned to a courtroom.

We met with Deputy District Attorney Chris Hinkle briefly in the hall, providing him with a copy of a videotape which shows what happened on September 14, 2004 (the date when we supposedly trespassed). The video shows a friendly conversation with the police, as the two officers laughingly affirmed the fact that we understand our legal boundaries.

Hinkle handed the video back to me, saying "you'll never get this in." Then he went on to say, "look, I agree with you politically. I don't think what you do is bad. But I have orders from the top (referring to the District Attorney) to prosecute this case and I'm going to do my job. You seem to have the attitude that your case is somehow helped by not waiving time, but it doesn't help you at all. But I'll tell you what: if you will just waive time, I'll go ahead and take a look at your videotape. Otherwise, you won't be able to get it in." Hinkle then went back into the courtroom to deal with other cases while waiting for the second courtroom to be opened.

As we waited in the hall for the second courtroom to be opened, the bailiff approached us, seeking to prevent our sons Micah (15) and Joseph (10) and our prayer supporter Dianne Seames from entering the courtroom. The bailiff said that he considered it inappropriate for children to watch their parents on trial, and that Dianne may need to stay in the hall to supervise them. (Micah and Joseph were sitting quietly throughout this time, as they had done for our previous court dates.) When we explained that our sons were mature enough to be in the courtroom, the bailiff said he would talk it over with the judge.

Finally, the courtroom door opened. The bailiff didn't say a word to us, but stood to the side allowing us and our children and Dianne to enter.

When Judge Robert Tafoya came to the bench, he first pointed out the fact that we have been charged with violating penal code section 602(o) while the jury instructions submitted by the prosecutor refer to 602(m)

I explained to the judge that 602(m) involves not only "entering" private property but "occupying" private property, mentioning a case called People v. Wilkinson (1967) which had established the fact that the word "occupy" refers to a "nontransient, continuous type of possession." This 1967 case involved people who camped out overnight on someone else's property, but the court found that even this overnight camping did not involve "occupying."

"If the prosecutor intends to show that we occupied this property, that we did something which would go beyond camping overnight, I am not aware of it," I said. "Unless he intends to show that we 'occupied' this property, we shouldn't waste a jury's time with this."

After a long discussion, Judge Tafoya said that we all need to research the meaning of the word "occupy" before we return to court.

Prosecutor Hinkle informed the judge that we had attempted to provide him with a video of the police during this incident, but he said that our video was provided too late.   He went on to say that the witness list I had provided to him on Friday was also too late. I explained to the judge that we had just found this video excerpt over the weekend, and that we had just identified our witnesses.  We had not been hiding any evidence from the prosecution, although we had reason to believe that various important documents were hidden from us (such as a contract the security guard claimed to have with a neighboring property owner who had given us permission to be on his property).

Because of this claim that we were somehow hiding evidence from him, Hinkle asked the judge to grant him a continuance so that he would have time to interview our witnesses and review the evidence more fully.  Hinkle requested a week to prepare, which would have made the next hearing July 12.

In the end, the judge granted the continuance requested by the prosecutor as a "sanction" against us for supposedly withholding evidence, setting the trial date for next Monday, July 11 (the last day our trial could begin unless we waive time again).  But the judge left the door open for the prosecution to dismiss the charges in the meantime.

Please pray that these charges will be dismissed, and God will be glorified by the result! If you have a chance to come to the courtroom on Monday morning, we would greatly appreciate the prayer support.

In Christ's service for those who cannot speak for themselves,

Tim Palmquist

> > Next trial report (7/7/05)