Third, value considerations for First Amendment exercise,
-1-
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.
ARGUMENT
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).
-2-
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.
CONCLUSION
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
3