Court Report - Manifestation Law - Monica Jones Appeal
Was a very good session. Small court room only 25 folks in total. In beginning 4 were standing and the judge said let's move the extra chairs for attorney's to aisle for the 4 to sit.
There were only 30 minutes allocated to each side. Oral arguments are interactive with the judge asking deep probing legal questions of both sides interrupting their arguments to challenge or get clarification.
The manifestation law issue which was the entire argument is legally very complex with argument about other cases cited whether they applied here or not.
I thought Monica's lawyer was outstanding. Did a great job with the legal questions judge raised. He seems to have an uphill fight on the legal issues but presented and answered challenges very well.
I sat next to the 3TV reporter and they did an interview with both the lawyer and Monica outside the Courthouse.
The case, of course, had nothing to do with being TS - never raised at the trial,but the fine legal points of the manifestation law and how Monica's prior conviction was used as intent improperly. The ACLU brief discussed it but was dismissed by the State and never raised by Monica's lawyer either in briefs, at trial or appeal since TS discrimination while terrible and Monica has been victimized, it had nothing to do with this case.
Related to the prior conviction issue judge challenged Monica's attorney that in the trial transcript page 44, when the State argued it the Defense did not object. Defense had argued the issue in re-trial briefs. However, during the trial when the issue was raised by the State, Monica didn't object to its admission. The judge raised the issue that if it was not objected to at trial it can not be considered on appeal. Both sides argued various legal arguments if can be considered or not. Judge suggested two reasons not objected to that either defense didn't feel they had a strong argument against it or the defense attorney was "asleep at the switch" and overlooked objecting. Issue remains whether Defense waived the issue by not objecting or not.
Judge was outstanding in my view, raising questions about the arguments of each taking kind of the other view of each asking how they would respond. Seemed very fair and took the legal questions very seriously.
Details
The manifestation law was argued as unconstitutional based on two issues.
1) Free speech issue is asking if a police officer or other elements with no furtherance of a crime and no intent proved, protected free speech.
An issue was the legitimacy of a law that requires or not intent to have the intent to manifest an act of prostitution.
The judge discussed what is the difference from someone saying, "I will pay you $100 for sex". Is that protected free speech?. No because its specific to an illegal act. But the manifestation law does not require the intent of prostitution only the intent to intend (confusing).
On asking if police, maybe you ask since there is a lose dog biting people or something.
The Judge noted Monica's specific acts at the trial. She admitted to grabbing the cops groin. She argues it was self-defense not knowing she was a cop and the State argues it proves the intent of prostitution.
The Judge also noted from the trial transcript that the officer testified Monica asked him to touch her bare breasts (to prove not a cop). Monica denied this so as the judge pointed out it this fact relies on a balance of credibility.
2) Vagueness of the law or over broad. There was a lot of discussion of the State v Savio case. Monica's attorney argues the facts are different enough that it didn't apply.
Monica's attorney also argued the law was discriminatory with arbitrary enforcement since left to a police officer to decide if related to prostitution or ask if a police officer to tell of a crime etc. Again the State argues the grabbing of his crotch and alleged touching breasts showed the prostitution intent beyond just asking if a police officer.
Judge will take the case under advisement and rule as soon as he can.
Dave's non-lawyer view
To me its a 50-50 odds.
The judge could rule the manifestation law itself is unconstitutional which would not only be a win for Monica but make the streets safer from such charges in the future.
The bad part if the law is upheld is Monica's own testimony and admissions (remember she approached the cop because he was "cute"), and discussed going to a room etc. However, maybe this was just for a regular date since no money was discussed to make it prostitution.
What in my view was missed by the defense is maybe Monica just wanted to hook up with the cute cop. There as no offer of sex for money which is why she was not charged with prostitution, only the vague intent to manifest prostitution. I don't recall this being raised by the defense.
Also, the judge may consider other issues raised in the Appeal Briefs not presented in the oral arguments. But the oral argued issues seem to be the key to the case.
I believe in the judge's ruling he will address all the issues in the Appeal Briefs, not just the issues raised at the Oral Argument which will make the ruling very interesting.
I met a female attorney in Court, following the case specifically on the right to a jury issue that she wants to appeal on in another sexwork related case in Scottsdale. We had a great discussion of cases.
I talked briefly with the ACLU attorney on a possible appeal. Either side might appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals, but there are narrow grounds to do so which he had not researched to have an opinion on if Monica could appeal further if lost.