|
|
« Medical leave is ending for two gray seals | Today | Photo: House fire near E. Providence City Hall » April 1, 2008Smoke-shop case: Jury begins its deliberationsPROVIDENCE -- A jury of seven women and five men this morning began deliberating the case against seven Narragansett Indians arrested as state police raided a tribal smoke shop that was not charging state taxes on cigarettes. The jury left the courtroom at 11:18 a.m. after receiving instructions from Superior Court Judge Susan E. McGuirl that lasted about an hour and a half. McGuirl told jurors, "You are to make this decision based on the evidence and the facts." She said race should not be a factor. Her instructions regarding the charges of resisting arrest included that a defendant has a right to use reasonable force in an arrest in which an officer uses excessive force. So the jury will have to weigh that. Six of the seven defendants, including Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, are charged with resisting arrest. The tribe started selling tax-free cigarettes on its land in Charlestown on July 12, 2003, over Governor Carcieri’s objections. Dozens of state police, armed with a warrant, went to the shop two days later to halt tax-free tobacco sales. But the action turned into a scuffle, caught on camera by TV journalists and photographers there that day. The jury will be able to draw from raw TV news footage, surveillance video at the shop, state police video of the raid, and photos among other evidence presented during the trial. Federal courts have ruled state police had authority to use the warrant and seize cigarettes that day. The jury must decide whether the Narragansetts are guilty of misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and simple assault related to the confrontation. Jurors will consider 17 counts all together for the seven defendants. Read coverage of yesterday's closing arguments in the case. Extra: More coverage of the raid and the trial, including video, photos and search warrant documents. -- projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney, with reports from Journal staff writer Katie Mulvaney Posted by Mike McKinney CommentsTom Thompson | April 1, 2008 1:08 PM link A TOTAL WASTE of tax money!!!!!!!!!!!! bob | April 1, 2008 1:40 PM link The Journal has never clearly stated that no one was ever charged with the crime of illegaly selling cigarettes-the very reason the warrant was issued. It may have been buried in one or two articles on page 6. Therefore, the question is why was no one ever charged? Isn't it obvious they were illegally selling cigarettes? What's the real reason? Could it be that the arrests themselves were illegal? Frank Martin | April 1, 2008 3:37 PM link "Federal rule 41(d) requires presentation of a search and seizure warrant at the onset. That did not happen, even after requested by the defendants." Yeah, because the troopers were too busy getting assaulted!!! "Excuse me, I need to give you this peace of paper, can you please remove your hands from my throat Chief Sachem>?" What an idiot. Jail cells all around! EMT | April 1, 2008 6:49 PM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
Federal rule 41(d) requires presentation of a search and seizure warrant at the onset. That did not happen, even after requested by the defendants. The exclusion provision prevents the presentation of evidence into trial seized or obtained illegally. Federal courts have upheld the State's right to bring resistance charges forward, but they have not mandated guilt nor upheld State's actions in the illegally conducted raid as reasonable or valid. This was a politically motivated police action with a legal warrant that was illegally executed. All defendants should be found innocent.