versus          )     CRIMINAL NUMBER 87-62
                     )     Judge Charles Richey


Defendant William Thomas, presently pro se, respectfully moves this Court for a jury in the above mentioned case. The right to a jury trial is guaranteed twice in the United States Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Article III Sec.2, cl.3; Amendment VI. The fundamental importance of this right, particularly where First Amendment values are at stake, counsels in favor of granting defendant's request. Other factors also bear consideration.


First, this regulatory offense carries a maximum potential sentence of six months incarceration and/ or a fine of $500. 36 CFR 50.5 (1986). Thus Thomas faces a possible six months imprisonment plus a monetary punishment.

Second, the ''camping" regulation at issue, 36 CFR 7.96(i), is not the result of legislative enactment and executive signature but is a regulation written by and for the executive branch, and indisputably possesses the potential to be selectively applied to further the suppression of expressive activities. This potentially undemocratic aspect of the regulation recommends the wisdom of submitting the case to a jury who represent the community of Thomas' peers.

Third, value considerations for First Amendment exercise,


which constitutes "substantial money damages" (City of Watseka v. Illinois Public Action Council, 796 F.2d 1559, Summarily Affirmed by the Supreme Court, slip opinion 86-631, decided January 27, 1987, White, J., The Chief Justice, and O' Conner, 3. dissenting), must be considered separate.


The Supreme Court has indicated that the maximum limit on incarceration for a particular offense is not necessarily dispositive of the issue whether the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. SEE Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69 n.6 (1970); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 159 (1968). 1/

In United States v. Craner, 652 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1981), Craner was convicted in a bench trial for a violation of an Interior Department regulation which proscribes driving under the influence of alcohol while in a National Park. The potential penalty for such a violation was not only six months incarceration, but also the loss of one's driver's license. The potential incarceration of six months fell just below the six month and one day line above which a jury trial is automatically required by Baldwin. The court held that the added risk of losing his driver's license entitled him to a jury trial. 652 F.2d at 27.


1/Granting a jury trial where an individual faces six months of Incarceration is not unprecedented in this District. In USA v. Thomas, CR. 83-186, Judge Oberdorfer granted Thomas' motion for a jury trial where Thomas was charged with violating 36 CFR 50.19(3)(8)(i), which makes it unlawful to place a "structure" on the White House sidewalk. Judge Oberdorfer explained that "[t}he exposure of defendant to punishment not exceeding six months plus the impairment of defendant's ongoing protest activity indicate that the crime charged is not petty and that jury trial is in order." Revised Memorandum at 4 (November 23, 1983; citing Craner, supra).


Similarly, Thomas is entitled to a jury of his peers: the chilling effect on his First Amendment rights elevate the government's charge far above the realm of "petty." The factors articulated above support the propriety of, as well as the constitutional necessity for, a jury trial in this case.


WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a jury.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day April, 1987.

William Thomas, Pro Se
1440 N Street NW 410, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542