Read Mark Hamblett’s full text article here.
Mr. Fahringer told the circuit panel hearing United States v. Stewart, 10-3185-cr., that it was wrong to punish Ms. Stewart for comments made “on the steps of the courthouse,” where there has always been “much wider latitude” for speech.
He urged the panel not to go “down that road” because “no one will be able to comment after a sentence for fear that the same thing could happen to them.”
***
And when asked about Mr. Fahringer’s argument that the benefit of the doubt goes to the speaker when the speech is ambiguous, Mr. Dember answered that “Judge Koeltl didn’t find any of the statements ambiguous at all.”
Read the brief of the United States.
Related articles
- Same players, different arguments, for round 2 of Lynne Stewart sentencing appeal in Second Circuit (sentencing.typepad.com)
- Second Circuit Mulls Lynne Stewart Case (Again) (blogs.wsj.com)
lennyesq 