Post by WaTcHeR on Apr 10, 2006 9:51:23 GMT -5
04/09/2006 - FARMINGTON, NM---In a case which could have a significant impact on the criminal charges being prosecuted in northern Ohio against disbarred attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner, a state district judge in New Mexico has ruled that a charge of criminal libel, lodged against a Farmington man for criticizing a police officer, was unconstitutional.
In issuing his ruling, state District Court Judge William Birdsall said that the state could not criminally charge Juan Mata for criticizing a Farmington police officer because the law was unconstitutional on its face and violated Mata’s free speech rights. He dismissed the charges against Mata with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be brought again.
"In a time when fundamental rights are increasingly under siege, it is incumbent upon the courts to safeguard the liberties provided for in our state and federal constitutions," Birdsall wrote in his order.
Mata, 32, had been convicted on a charge of criminal libel and sentenced to 360 days in jail, subsequently suspended, as the result of a letter written by Ron Adamson, a lawyer representing Mata. Adamson had accused Mike Briseno, an officer with the Farmington Police Department, of 11 felonies and asked the police department to investigate an alleged incident against Mata involving Briesno in 2004. Mata did not sign the letter.
Mata had circulated a petition which asked the police department for an investigation of Briseno and picketed the department with signs calling Briseno a liar. He said that the police officer repeatedly harassed him and argued that he had a constitutional right to circulate a petition and to criticize the police officer.
The police officer had claimed that Mata’s accusations were false, that his actions were an attempt to destroy the officer’s credibility. He claimed that Mata scared him because Mata had videotaped the officer from his own property when Briseno drove by Mata’s residence. The officer said he was frightened when Mata drove by him when he was issuing tickets at a location in the city.
Mata was subsequently charged with criminal libel, harassment and stalking two months after he and his family filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city in November 2004 alleging police brutality. He and his lawyer maintained that the criminal charges lodged against him were in retaliation for his lawsuit. The city settled the lawsuit with Mata in November 2005 for $75,000 but did not admit any wrongdoing.
Following his conviction last year, his attorney had appealed to the state district court, arguing that the statute under which Mata had been convicted was unconstitutional and that Mata’s actions were constitutionally protected. He said that his client never should have been charged because the charges violated his free speech rights.
The judge had been scheduled to hear Mata’s appeal on April 17. The city maintains it will pursue the stalking and harassment charges.
Mata’s attorney says his client is being prosecuted for exercising his right to criticize a public official and to file what in essence is an internal affairs complaint against Beison and other members of the police department.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals had declared the criminal libel law unconstitutional in 1992, leaving the city few options.
Bob Johnson, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government praised the judge, saying that “the judge is the last line of defense when other agencies are trying to crack down on people’s civil rights. It’s a welcomed ruling”.
Baumgartner has been charged with numerous felony counts of intimidation, retaliation and falsification for criticizing retiring visiting judge Richard Markus and other public officers in northern Ohio, alleging that he has engaged in case fixing and other corrupt activities. In addition to filing the criminal complaint against her, alleging that he was intimidated by her criticism of him, he has also filed contempt charges against her because she publicly criticized him during court proceedings.
Baumgartner was arraigned last week on new charges of intimidation and retaliation on complaint of her former business partner and his wife for alleged postings on a web site which she financed and was a principal.
The statutes at issue in the Baumgartner case have never been tested for their constitutionality and appear to be unconstitutional on their face, in violation of free speech rights as is the New Mexico statute.
In issuing his ruling, state District Court Judge William Birdsall said that the state could not criminally charge Juan Mata for criticizing a Farmington police officer because the law was unconstitutional on its face and violated Mata’s free speech rights. He dismissed the charges against Mata with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be brought again.
"In a time when fundamental rights are increasingly under siege, it is incumbent upon the courts to safeguard the liberties provided for in our state and federal constitutions," Birdsall wrote in his order.
Mata, 32, had been convicted on a charge of criminal libel and sentenced to 360 days in jail, subsequently suspended, as the result of a letter written by Ron Adamson, a lawyer representing Mata. Adamson had accused Mike Briseno, an officer with the Farmington Police Department, of 11 felonies and asked the police department to investigate an alleged incident against Mata involving Briesno in 2004. Mata did not sign the letter.
Mata had circulated a petition which asked the police department for an investigation of Briseno and picketed the department with signs calling Briseno a liar. He said that the police officer repeatedly harassed him and argued that he had a constitutional right to circulate a petition and to criticize the police officer.
The police officer had claimed that Mata’s accusations were false, that his actions were an attempt to destroy the officer’s credibility. He claimed that Mata scared him because Mata had videotaped the officer from his own property when Briseno drove by Mata’s residence. The officer said he was frightened when Mata drove by him when he was issuing tickets at a location in the city.
Mata was subsequently charged with criminal libel, harassment and stalking two months after he and his family filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city in November 2004 alleging police brutality. He and his lawyer maintained that the criminal charges lodged against him were in retaliation for his lawsuit. The city settled the lawsuit with Mata in November 2005 for $75,000 but did not admit any wrongdoing.
Following his conviction last year, his attorney had appealed to the state district court, arguing that the statute under which Mata had been convicted was unconstitutional and that Mata’s actions were constitutionally protected. He said that his client never should have been charged because the charges violated his free speech rights.
The judge had been scheduled to hear Mata’s appeal on April 17. The city maintains it will pursue the stalking and harassment charges.
Mata’s attorney says his client is being prosecuted for exercising his right to criticize a public official and to file what in essence is an internal affairs complaint against Beison and other members of the police department.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals had declared the criminal libel law unconstitutional in 1992, leaving the city few options.
Bob Johnson, executive director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government praised the judge, saying that “the judge is the last line of defense when other agencies are trying to crack down on people’s civil rights. It’s a welcomed ruling”.
Baumgartner has been charged with numerous felony counts of intimidation, retaliation and falsification for criticizing retiring visiting judge Richard Markus and other public officers in northern Ohio, alleging that he has engaged in case fixing and other corrupt activities. In addition to filing the criminal complaint against her, alleging that he was intimidated by her criticism of him, he has also filed contempt charges against her because she publicly criticized him during court proceedings.
Baumgartner was arraigned last week on new charges of intimidation and retaliation on complaint of her former business partner and his wife for alleged postings on a web site which she financed and was a principal.
The statutes at issue in the Baumgartner case have never been tested for their constitutionality and appear to be unconstitutional on their face, in violation of free speech rights as is the New Mexico statute.
