arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

STATEMENT TO THE COURT AT SENTENCING
by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
I want to make it clear today, that my only interest
in this matter at this time is to state forthrightly
that I intend to challenge this unjust conviction, and
to appeal it to the highest court in the land.
From the beginning, we knew that there had been no
possibility of a fair trial in these proceedings, if
held in Chattanooga. Especially for myself, I have
known there has been widespread political prejudice
against me, if not personal hatred, from the public
officials in Chattanooga and Hamilton County since I
have been a persistent critic of police operations and
the denial of equal justice for Black people in this
area. Ironically, I was a plaintiff in the federal
civil rights action against county and state officials
that challenged the fact there are no African-American
judges in this area, and some ten years after the
start of litigation, there still are not any
representatives from the Black community deemed fit to
sit in judgment. Yet, though the court itself is
personally aware of this prejudice by county
officials, the court has not seen fit to grant the
motion to have had this case transferred to another
county, even though there was widespread negative
publicity by local media throughout the county about
the case and the defendants, both from the time of the
incident itself, but more importantly, immediately upto and during the trial.
But this is just part of the reason we are looking at
a case of true selective prosecution, whereby only in
Hamilton County, in the entire state of Tennessee, and
against local movements I have led against racism and
police brutality have the charges of disruption been
used in a court of law. They have not been used
against racists like the Ku Klux Klan who have
terrorized the Black community for years, against
anti-abortionists, who have blocked the women's clinic
and terrorized women seeking an abortion, nor against
anyone else in this city or state for any kind of
political protest that the authorities approved of.
Clearly, common sense would lead a reasonable person
to conclude that this law is being used to prosecute
for reasons beyond that stated in the indictment. We
know it's to try to punish me for my years of activism
in this area. Let's be honest about that, shall we?

*The court allowed a tainted jury selection process
whereby the next door neighbor and friends of the
attorneys in this legal matter were placed in the jury
pool, and we had to use our very scarce number of
peremptory challenges to remove them. The court on its
motion should have removed such persons, or granted
the motion of defense attorneys to remove them for
cause. This was an obvious call, but one which clearly
showed that the court was deeply biased toward the
state and wanted us to have a biased jury.
*The court allowed the systematic removal of more
Black persons from the jury than were actually placed
on it. This showed that the court would allow any
amount of racial bias in the selection of a jury,
regardless of what the law says.
*In undue deference to the prosecution, the court
refused to even allow our attorneys to make an
argument to the jury that the First Amendment was at
issue in this case. We all know that the questions
about the constitutionality of the statute clearly
linger, and have yet to be *finally* resolved by any
court. To have told the defense attorneys that they
could not argue about the constitutionality of the
statute or even that the First Amendment allows
dissent from government policies and to appear before
government officials to state grievances deprived us
of a fair trial and to not have even had a defense. I
believe that it made our attorneys so ineffective that
we were deprived of the effective assistance of
counsel entirely as required by the Sixth Amendment.
*The pretrial publicity was so extensive that it was
clear that the jury members were exposed to it, and
were not honest in saying that they could decide this
case in an unbiased manner. They remembered it two
years before. Who in their right mind would believe
that they did not know about it in the days leading up
to the event? Yet the court allowed persons who heard
of the case, and despite their protestations, clearly
had a bias against the defendants, to sit in judgment,
and would not consider sequestering the jury to shield
them from prejudicial newspaper reporting and nightly
re-enactment of the case by Chattanooga TV stations,
commentary in newspapers and on radio stations.
*During the trial an incident took place in which a
man came into the courtroom and when asked by bailiffs
if he "had anything on him," surrendered a bag of
various kinds of bullets. Myself and Damon McGee were
also personally told by a court bailiff that the man
had a firearm as well. Personally, I believe that his
whole matter was staged by the Hamilton County
Sheriff's office and local officials to prejudice the
jury and support the sheriff's call for "more funding"for courtroom security.
Whatever the truth of that matter, the gunman was not
arrested for a felony (T.C.A. 39-17-1306) no less,
which was more serious than what we were on trial for.
No one attempted to stop him even when he ran out of
the courthouse screaming that he was going to "get men
with guns from bin Laden's group" to come back. I
cannot believe that no action was taken to apprehend
him, nor that the court did not voluntarily hold a
hearing in this matter and only questioned the jury
about it when implored to do so by the defense. Even
then, when it was discovered that there had been
widespread reportage of this matter in the local news
and that the jurors had all discussed it, the court
held no hearing and refused to grant the defense
motion motion for a mistrial. It took the defendants
themselves to argue vigorously with our very reluctant
defense counsel just to get them to agree to approach
the court about removing the three jurors who admitted
seeing the incident on the news and/or discussing it
in jury chambers. That was the only action the court
took, and it was not enough since it was clear that
the entire jury pool was tainted. This clearly and
obviously deprived us of a fair trial because we were
deprived of a fair jury itself, and removing the three
juror was not curative of the matter. It was judicial
misconduct to continue to hold a trial under such
conditions. It just shows that the court only wanted a
jury capable of a conviction, regardless of thecircumstances.
*Because I felt that I was not receiving the effective
asistance of counsel that I am entitled to by both the
national and state constitutions, I sought to
represent myself in this matter. I attempted to
address the court and present a written motion to that
effect, but the court claimed that "it was too late"
since the trial had started. This was an egregious
violation. The United States Supreme Court has already
ruled on this matter and held that the right to
self-representation cannot be limited by the court in
any way. Furthermore, the Constitution of the State of
Tennessee, Article 1, Section 9, clearly recognizes
the right of self-representation and places no
limitations on it as having to occur pre-trial.
*I also want to say that this case going to trial over
two and a half years after indictment was outrageous
and in violation of the defendants' rights to a speedy
trial as well as the statute of limitations. There is
no question that the court was overly lenient to the
state in deciding how this case should be conducted,
even after the time for most proseuctions would havelapsed.
In conclusion, let me say that I know that these
issues will be raised on appeal and in post-conviction
motions. I will see to that, but I wanted to address
these matters today, get them into the record and
state my objections to what all the defendants agreed
wasa kangaroo court trial, a political show trial, to
satisfy the desire of local officials for revenge. In
that respect, we could expect no real considerations
of fair play or observance of the rules. But this is
not the end of it. I am confident that the statute
will be ruled unconstitutional and that there will be
an investigation of this entire case. This statement
has been put on the internet, and people all over the
world know about this travesty of justice. The furor
over it will not die down. It will wind up hauntingyou, I assure you.
I am not afraid of being sentenced to jail because my
cause is a just one. You may break my body, but never
my heart or soul. In fact, it is you who should be
afraid and embarrassed over your part in this case
because it totally betrays your vaunted principles of
the law being impartial and that citizens have rights
which the government is bound to respect, including
the right to dissent. If you are Black, a critic of
police and politicians, and have no money to defend
yourself, the law and the constitution do not equally
apply to you, and the law will be perverted to
persecute you. That is the reality exposed by this trial.

Lorenzo Komboa Ervin
February 26, 2001
Hamilton County Criminal Court
Chattanooga, Tennessee