7 Cleared in Protest At Supreme Court
D.C. Judge Questions Federal Prohibition On Demonstrations on Building's Steps

By Arthur Santana
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 29, 2002; Page B01

A D.C. Superior Court judge acquitted seven death penalty protesters yesterday, saying they were arrested inappropriately although the law prohibits demonstrations such as theirs on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling in the non-jury trial, which Judge Mildred M. Edwards said was one of the toughest in her career as a trial judge, has no binding effect on future cases of trespassing at the Supreme Court, but the decision may embolden others, legal experts said.

Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the National Capital Area of the ACLU, said the government cannot appeal the acquittal. But he warned that while the ruling may encourage others to demonstrate on the steps, they should be aware that the Supreme Court police are under no obligation to stop arresting people and that other Superior Court judges can easily convict them. Those acquitted yesterday said they planned to protest on the steps again.

Spitzer said, "A decision of a trial court . . . is not a binding precedent that any other court has to follow. Not even another judge of the same court."

The defendants, all from outside the area, climbed the steps of the Supreme Court on Jan. 17 and unfurled a 30-foot-long banner that read, "Stop Executions!" Their demonstration violated a law prohibiting such actions in the Supreme Court Building or on its grounds.

Four of the seven defended themselves, making the same twofold argument: that the First Amendment allowed them to stage a demonstration on the high court's highest step, and that the Supreme Court police did not give them adequate warning before they seized their banner and arrested them.

"We had a message that needed to be said, and we were in our constitutional rights to do so," said protester Abraham Bonowitz, 35, director of the Abolitionist Action Committee, a Florida-based anti-death penalty group.

"The plaza is the property of the people, and the people should be able to go there," he said. "This decision . . . should be an indicator that one day that plaza will be free."

The January protest was the first time in four years that the Supreme Court restrictions were challenged. In 1998, a preacher knelt in prayer at the first step of the building to mark the National Day of Prayer. He was arrested and found guilty.

In January 1997, Bonowitz was among 18 people arrested after unfurling a banner on the Supreme Court steps. Seven members of that group used the First Amendment defense but were convicted and given suspended sentences.

Ruling in that case, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin cited federal law, saying that even peaceful demonstrations violate the "dignity and decorum" of the court. Morin's ruling was upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Judge Edwards said in court yesterday that she was uncertain she agreed with the appeals court. She also said she did not find probable cause that the protesters were given adequate warning before they were arrested, citing images from a surveillance camera, used by defense attorney Mark L. Goldstone.

"This ruling will obviously have a lot of currency in anti-death penalty circles. The word will get out across the political spectrum that some civil disobedients were acquitted," said Jamin B. Raskin, a professor of law at American University.

"If in fact they were commiting a crime, no warning was really required," Raskin said.

Edwards said, "Cases like this put a judge to the test." She declined to comment after her ruling. Kathy Arberg, spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, also declined to comment.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company