Philly 5 Lose One in Court

Federal judge again refuses to intervene
in retaliatory prosecution of Philly 5

Tupelo, MS. Feb., 04 /Covenant News Wire Service/ -- In their second attempt urging Federal Judge Petrese B. Tucker to enjoin the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office from continuing with retaliatory criminal proceedings against them, the “Philly 5” were again denied relief by Judge Tucker. The Philly 5 renewed their earlier motion to the court based upon statements made by an assistant district attorney explaining why the retaliatory prosecution was undertaken.

Judge Petrese B. Tucker denied the request for relief, saying the Philly 5 had provided “insufficient evidence . . . regarding why any of the defendants would want to stifle their First Amendment rights.” The judge made this assertion even though assistant district attorney Charles Ehrlich explained at a preliminary hearing for the Christians the reason why his office wanted to stifle their First Amendment rights: The reason, said Ehrlich, was that the religious speech of the Christians was “hateful, disgusting, despicable words,’ and ‘fighting words.”

AFA Center for Law and Policy (“CLP”) senior trial attorney, Brian Fahling, who is representing the Christians in federal court, strongly disagreed with Tucker’s ruling, saying “the law requires us to show bad faith or retaliation by the D.A.’s office; we established that beyond argument with a videotape of the entire incident that shows our clients peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, then being arrested and charged with crimes that carry a potential for forty seven years imprisonment, and a District Attorney’s office that retaliated against them because it hates their speech.” Fahling continued, “It is difficult to conceive of more compelling evidence of bad faith and retaliation than what we have presented to the court in this case.”

CLP senior litigation counsel, Michael DePrimo, agreed with Fahling: “There has never been a stronger case for federal court intervention based upon allegations of bad faith and retaliation than [the Philly 5] presented to Judge Tucker. While other federal courts, when deciding whether bad faith or retaliation has been established, consider whether the government has any hope of securing a valid conviction, Judge Tucker failed even to ask the question.” DePrimo added, “The Philadelphia District Attorney has ‘zero hope’ of securing valid convictions in this case. Prior to taking the bench, Judge Tucker was an assistant district attorney for Philadelphia for eight years; she is undoubtedly aware that peaceful expression of First Amendment rights is not criminal.”

Watch Video Footage of the OutFest Arrests! (windows media player required)

CONTACT:
American Family Association
Kathryn Hooks
P.O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38803
1-662-844-5036
www.afa.net



PRESS RELEASE FILE