charlesjacob4695
New Member
Warning this story gets quite disgusting.Still it is kind of funny--if you can stomach it.
Man Goes To Jail For Pooping In Court
- Thread starter charlesjacob4695
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Found Deceased GA - Kyle Clinkscales, 23, LaGrange, 27 Jan 1976 *car found in 2021*
- Latest: Unalienable Rights
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182
- Latest: somequestions
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,244
- Reaction score
- 17,173
He should have informed the court staff that the bathroom needed cleaning. But a criminal act? Nah, I don't think so. Therefore, I agree with the dissenting opinion (page 22):
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/12-1842P-01A.pdf
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 12-1842
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. RONALD J. STRONG, Defendant, Appellant.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge (Dissenting). The momentous importance of this case surely forecasts its deserved place in the annals of federal prosecutorial history.
Before us is an appeal from a conviction of a citizen who was prosecuted for soiling federal property after he had the misfortune of involuntarily losing control of his bowels while on the premises of the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This incident was followed by the filing of multiple criminal charges.
Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge found defendant Ronald Strong guilty of willfully damaging federal property, 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.380(b), creating a hazard on federal property, id. § 102-74.380(d), and creating a nuisance on federal property, id. § 102-74.390(a). Thereafter, Strong was sentenced to seven days in jail for each count, to run concurrently. He appealed his convictions to the district court, wherein the convictions were affirmed.
On appeal, Strong argues that his convictions must be reversed for two independent reasons: First, that a prerequisite to a prosecution under the above regulations was not satisfied -- namely, that notice of those regulations was not properly posted. Second, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the mental state required for the convictions. Neither argument persuades the majority. Because I find both arguments persuasive, I respectfully dissent.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/12-1842P-01A.pdf
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 12-1842
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. RONALD J. STRONG, Defendant, Appellant.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge (Dissenting). The momentous importance of this case surely forecasts its deserved place in the annals of federal prosecutorial history.
Before us is an appeal from a conviction of a citizen who was prosecuted for soiling federal property after he had the misfortune of involuntarily losing control of his bowels while on the premises of the United States District Court for the District of Maine. This incident was followed by the filing of multiple criminal charges.
Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge found defendant Ronald Strong guilty of willfully damaging federal property, 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.380(b), creating a hazard on federal property, id. § 102-74.380(d), and creating a nuisance on federal property, id. § 102-74.390(a). Thereafter, Strong was sentenced to seven days in jail for each count, to run concurrently. He appealed his convictions to the district court, wherein the convictions were affirmed.
On appeal, Strong argues that his convictions must be reversed for two independent reasons: First, that a prerequisite to a prosecution under the above regulations was not satisfied -- namely, that notice of those regulations was not properly posted. Second, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the mental state required for the convictions. Neither argument persuades the majority. Because I find both arguments persuasive, I respectfully dissent.