| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Sauger's conviction overturned
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 4:18 PM on 11.11.08 |
->> For those of you who remember the thread that quickly devolved into a political snipefest about a year ago, there is an update.
Jeffrey Sauger's conviction in Toledo has been overturned by an Ohio appeals court.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/11/sauger.html
Congrats to Jeff, glad that part is over, may he also prevail in his civil rights lawsuit.
Sean |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 4:33 PM on 11.11.08 |
| ->> Congrats, indeed! |
|
John Tucker, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cordova | TN | USA | Posted: 10:10 AM on 11.12.08 |
->> Good for him, but the reason for the overturned conviction (due to him not getting a speedy trial), sucks!
He should have never been convicted in the first place. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 2:33 PM on 11.12.08 |
| ->> there is not doubt he should never have been charged, and the ruling skips the first amendment which doesn't serve the greater good, but still good that Jeff no longer has this hanging over him. I also hope this ruling helps him in his civil rights lawsuit, even if not legally at least in giving him encouragement as he pursues the case. Should he win that we will all have a piece of legal precedent to lean on when the cops go overboard. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:48 PM on 11.12.08 |
->> There is a bigger issue at hand. It seems that the court has in effect thrown hundreds if not thousands of cases into question. How many cases will this ruling will touch is the real cliff hanger. Anyone who has a conviction based on a trial where they signed the the waiver without benefit of council may have just been handed a new trial.
You almost have to appeal this to preserve all of the trials that have happened under the same circumstances. I believe that Sauger should ultimately prevail on the other issues brought up, but this ruling has far greater implications. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 3:21 PM on 11.12.08 |
->> "Hurwitz also said that because of the particular rights that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for journalists that in some instances expands their First Amendment freedoms in certain circumstances, their civil rights suit also claims that under a federal statute called the Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits any government actor from removing the tools that a journalist uses to disseminate information to the public without just cause, Sauger was denied his rights when he was arrested and removed from covering the neo-Nazi protest and his equipment was unlawfully confiscated."
This one paragraph should speak volumes to PJ's that get stopped from doing their jobs. It backs some basic premises that have been discussed in countless threads here. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 4:11 PM on 11.12.08 |
| ->> Alan, unfortunately, Hurwitz is Sauger's lawyer. Not the judge. It would be nice to see a ruling like that. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 2:50 AM on 11.13.08 |
| ->> My worry is the Ohio Supreme Court could reinstate the conviction based on the original jury's decision and ignore the speedy trial ruling, provided the city of Toledo decides to pursue it. I would be bothered if I were not exonerated of the original charge, which Jeff should have never been arrested for in the first place. Still, I am pleased there has been some movement on his case and I wish him the best of luck in the future. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 6:50 AM on 11.13.08 |
| ->> Jeff, a very valid concern. Given how much money the city has been wiling to spend on this case it's possible they're dug in their heels and won't let it rest. Just remember, it's not the court's fault that the speedy trial angle was on the table, that was one of the cards played by Sauger's attorney. I'm sure she was also using the 1st amendment as well. I don't know enough about the law, but I'd guess that if the supreme court hears the case they'll only hear the merits of the speedy trial ruling and not hear the fist amendment issues. Let's just hope the supreme court sees this as too trivial a case to be worthy of their time. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:14 AM on 11.13.08 |
->> Unfortunately for Jeffrey, he won this appeal on the wrong issue, which will likely dramatically increase the likelihood of further litigation.
Eric raises a very salient point.
Even if the city were willing to drop the issue at this point, the fact that it was overturned on the validity (or lack thereof) of the waiver, which apparently is handed to every single defendant arraigned, rather than a first amendment issue, they would be incredibly imprudent in not pursuing the appeal. Even if they did not pursue it on their own volition, the court administrators (presumably the county?) would be imprudent to not vigorously pursue a higher appeal.
The stakes are simply too high not to, as to let this pass would presumably allow for the establishment of a precedent which would affect every conviction in that court over the x number of years that this waiver was used. The cost in resources and time would be overwhelming.
This is in no way a commentary regarding Jeffrey's rights to cover the event.
I would be amazed if it is not appealed. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 11.13.08 |
| ->> Given the millions of dollars in the current budget deficit for FY2008, not to mention the projected deficit for FY2009, I don't think the city law director and the legal dept will pursue an appeal. Their current focus is to recover monies from non-performing sweetheart development deals. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:48 PM on 11.13.08 |
->> David -
What is the cost of retrying the 1,000's of cases that could potentially be overturned on the same basis?
The cost of this appeal would pale in comparison.
In my lay opinion, this is no longer about the event that led to his arrest, it is all about their waiver and their ability to keep their other convictions intact. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
David A. Cantor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 11.13.08 |
->> Mark,
Jeffrey's case would appear to be an exception because it is my understanding after talking with some local attorneys that everyone in the court process is aware of the filing deadlines. The appellate decision was fact based on this specific case and the "judgement reversed" on a single fourth degree misdemeanor trial really does not set a precedent as you imply.
The only problem we should have with the decision is that the first amendment issues in trial errors 2-4 were rendered moot after the speedy trial judgement was found so we can't resolve the original, and specious in my mind, arrest concerns.
Of course, the best news is that Jeffrey isn't saddled with what many of us view as a wrongful conviction. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:02 PM on 11.13.08 |
->> David I'd be interested in knowing if the waivers are still being presented and signed under the same conditions that existed for Sauger.
As for what "everyone knows" and what local lawyers tell you.....
Once upon a time EVERYONE knew that women couldn't handle the pressures of casting a ballot. Everyone KNEW that Adam was a male Caucasian. EVERYONE knew that this waiver was legal, everyone but the appeals court.
I'm not a lawyer and don't really want to spend anymore time arguing law, so, to Jeff, best of luck and I hope that it all works out. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 3:46 PM on 11.13.08 |
->> David -
Have the locals given any indication of how many cases may fall into the circumstance where a speedy trial did not occur after the defendant filed a motion on the speedy trial motion (which the court found here that this acted to revoke the prior waiver)? That would seem to define the general range of potentially affected cases. The larger that number is the larger the need for appeal - again in my lay opinion. I would wager that someone is counting those numbers up statewide.
"Sauger asserts that, even were the speedy trial waiver of December 12, 2005 determined otherwise valid, his filing of a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds acted to revoke the prior waiver. We agree. State v. Hammitt (Oct. 20, 2000), 6th Dist. No. OT-00-020; State v. Koch (Dec. 5, 1997), 6th Dist. No. E-97-005." |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 2:09 PM on 04.07.09 |
->> From the Toledo Free Press:
Toledo must apologize for 2005 media arrests
More:
http://tinyurl.com/c52kzg |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 3:19 PM on 04.07.09 |
->> If the trial results were a dubious victory this is a slam dunk.
"Among the other conditions of the ruling, said attorney Julie Hurwitz, who filed the federal civil rights suit, the city has agreed to meet with members of the National Press Photographers Association and area news organization members to create safety guidelines for city news coverage." |
|
Jeffrey Sauger, Photographer
|
Royal Oak | MI | USA | Posted: 9:15 PM on 06.01.09 |
->> Thanks for the words of support.
Since the civil suit is ongoing, we're really not supposed to be talking about issues such as what were reported in the Toledo Free Press. As this entire process has reinforced, nothing is certain until it's signed on the dotted line, so, I wouldn't count on anything. The judge is trying very hard to settle this w/out going to trial. (I hope he does because I was told if we did it wouldn't be until 2011.) The TFP story was probably a little premature and added unnecessary stress to the process.
I think it does suck that the meat and potatoes weren't addressed, but, I'll take it compared to being jailed in Iran. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 3:40 PM on 06.02.10 |
->> This thread is now over 18-months old, it's been just days short of a year since the last word ... and here we are, the case has been settled:
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2010/06/sauger.html
Kudos go to Jeff and Jim for fighting this fight.
Sean |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|