This morning I sat in on a couple hours of closing arguments in the trial of animal-rights activist Rod Coronado. CityBeat editor David Rolland’s been covering the trial (for a compendium of what’s happened so far, go here), but he had an important meeting to attend, so we did a tag-team thing at about 10:15 a.m., just after the prosecution wrapped up its closing arguments.
Tony Serra, the famed civil-rights attorney, spoke for nearly three hours. He’s a trip—the kind of attorney who inspires movies (indeed, the film True Believer is about him). For more on Serra, check out this profile here.
Serra focused on the word “imminent” and its meaning in terms of the federal law Coronado is being tried under. On Aug. 1, 2003, during a Q&A after a talk in Hillcrest, Coronado demonstrated how, in his more radical days, he built crude incendiary devices out of juice jugs. For Coronado to be guilty of breaking the law, Serra said, the the jury must be convinced that he intended for the demonstration to motivate someone in the audience to go out and immediately commit a lawless action (”imminent=immediate” was displayed on an overhead screen during part of Serra’s speech). “If the person has time to reflect,” Serra said, “it becomes then the actions of that individual” and not an immediate response to what Coronado said.
To illustrate his point about inciting “imminent lawless action,” Serra did re-enactments of historical protests. He started with the Boston Tea Party.
“The English are robbing us blind!” Serra said. “They bring the tea in, they charge us outrageous prices! We must strike back! I will do everything in my means to oppose this taxation without representation! Bloodsucking taxation!”
This, Serra explained, is protected speech—you can rail all you want against a perceived injustice as long as you don’t incite others to commit a violent act. (We’ll forgive Serra the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution had not yet been drafted when the Boston Tea Party happened. It should be noted that Serra’s also, on principle, a tax evader.)
An example of unprotected speech, Serra said, would be: “Follow me my good people and we will throw the tea into the sea!”
“It’s calculated to produce imminent, immediate action,” he said. “That’s not the case, not the case [with Coronado].”
Serra told the jury that Coronado’s past actions (he did five years in federal prison for a 1995 arson attack on a Michigan State University animal-testing lab) shouldn’t be used to determine his intent on Aug. 1, 2003. He also emphasized that even though jurors might not agree with Coronado’s personal ideology, the First Amendment “allows everyone to express their ideology; that’s the beauty of a free society.” He quoted Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
He called the prosecution’s focus on an early morning arson fire that happened hours before Coronado arrived in San Diego “a red herring.” Affiliates of eco-saboteur group, the Earth Liberation Front, claimed responsibility for the fire, but Coronado said he didn’t know about it until reporters approached him at the Hillcrest talk. No one’s been named a suspect in the fire, and Coronado’s not on trial for the arson.
Serra also pointed to 9/11 and its impact on the public’s perception of law enforcement—and likewise law enforcement’s perception of its own role.
“Fear for our safety is a fundamental instinct,” he said. “We are beholden to law enforcement. They encircle and protect us. Therefore, what law enforcement wants, law enforcement gets.” That mindset, Serra argued, “Ultimately wreaks havoc on the pursuit of justice.”
