Hal Turner's explanation of his FBI informant status

[Judge Roy Bean]

If he's not convicted he's going to need another line of work.

[fortinbras]

Some of the people that Turner was calling out of the woodwork are, indeed, very anti-social types who do not feel themselves personally inhibited by various laws against doing bodily injury .... and now they have been told that Turner, himself, is a rat and a snitch.

Turner might be safer in prison than out.

[Paladin]

Christie Won’t Have To Testify For White Supremacist
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/12/04/c ... premacist/
Although the defense had subpoenaed Christie, it later decided not to call any witnesses in the case. The trial was moved to Brooklyn, N.Y., following a change-of-venue request, The AP reports. Closing arguments were scheduled for Friday. If convicted, Turner could be sentenced with up to 10 years in prison, according to The AP.

Neither Christie nor federal authorities commented on whether Turner was an FBI informant, The AP reports.

[Demosthenes]

Jury deadlocked in case of North Bergen shock jock Hal Turner
Friday, December 4, 2009
LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY DECEMBER 4, 2009, 6:30 PM
BY MIKE KELLY
THE RECORD

BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Jurors in the trial of hate radio shock jock and former FBI informant Hal Turner of North Bergen were sent home Friday night after announcing they were “hopelessly deadlocked.”

U.S. District Court Judge Donald Walter ordered the jury to return Monday morning to resume deliberations on whether Turner, 47, broke the law against threatening judges when he wrote on his blog last June that three federal appeals court judges “deserved to be killed” for ruling in favor of a gun control ordinance.

If convicted, Turner, who built an audience in recent years of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with
his extreme right-wing radio and blog tirades, could be sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The central issue in the case is whether Turner’s words alone constitute an illegal threat.

Prosecutors contend that Turner’s words were aimed to “impede,” “intimidate” and “retaliate” against the federal judges – all elements of a threat, they say. But Turner’s defense lawyers say Turner’s statement on his blog was merely his opinion as a shock jock and therefore protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

After initially deliberating only about two hours after lunch, the jury sent a note to Judge Walter at 3:20 p.m., saying that they were unable to reach a verdict – and probably would not be able to.
“We are hopelessly deadlocked,” Judge Walter said, reading the jury’s note on yellow legal paper. “Time will not change our vote.”

Walter summoned the jury into the courtroom and urged them to continue discussing the evidence.
“This is an important case,” Walter told the jurors. “This trial has been expensive in time and money.”

After another 90 minutes, Walter asked the jury if they wanted to continue deliberations later into the night. Jurors told the judge they wanted to go home and return on Monday.

But before they left, one juror wrote a note to the judge with a question about the central question of the case: whether Turner’s statement was a threat.

“If a man makes a verbal statement, I feel that’s opinion,” the juror wrote. “If it is put in writing and is public information, written, is he responsible?”

Sitting on the bench and asking defense and prosecution lawyers for advice, Walter sent back this response: “There is no legal distinction between oral and written.”
Moments later, the jury went home for the weekend.
Before his arrest last June, Turner worked from 2003 to 2007 as an FBI informant, gathering intelligence on the extremist groups who were attracted to his radio and blog. After the FBI canceled his informant’s status in August 2007, Turner remained in contact with the bureau passing on tips on various ultra-right-wing extremist groups.
Turner’s work as an FBI informant was the subject of an investigative report in last Sunday’s Record.
The trial, which was supposed to last as much as seven days, ended Thursday after less than two days of testimony.
On Friday morning, prosecution and defense attorneys presented final arguments to the jury of five white men, two white women, two black women, two Latino women and one Asian man.
In much the same style as their opening arguments, both sides portrayed Turner in decidedly opposite ways.
Assistant U.S. Attorney William Ridgeway said Turner’s blog posting that the federal appeals judges “deserved to be killed” was “undoubtedly a serious expression to inflict injury.”
Defense lawyer Nishay Sanan countered by comparing Turner to such shock jocks as Howard Stern and Don Imus.
“Giving your opinion is not a crime,” said Sanan of Turner’s blog posting that the judges “deserved to be killed.”
Besides free speech advocates, the trial is being watched closely by terrorism experts. Beginning in 2003, Turner worked secretly with FBI counter-terror agents in monitoring neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other extremists in America.

[Demosthenes]

“If a man makes a verbal statement, I feel that’s opinion,” the juror wrote. “If it is put in writing and is public information, written, is he responsible?”

[Judge Roy Bean]

“If a man makes a verbal statement, I feel that’s opinion,” the juror wrote. “If it is put in writing and is public information, written, is he responsible?”

There's a clue to the deadlock in there.

[grixit]

Ok, now what happened to his other claim-- bringing out the leftwingers in the government? That's a lot more interesting.

[bmielke]

Mistrial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02393.html

NEW YORK -- A judge declared a mistrial Monday in the case against a New Jersey blogger accused of making death threats against three federal judges in Chicago because they wrote a ruling supporting gun control.

The mistrial came after the jury sent two notes - one during its first day of deliberation on Friday and another on Monday - saying it was hopelessly deadlocked over charges Hal Turner threatened to kill or assault a federal judge. A retrial was scheduled for March 1 in Brooklyn, where the case was moved based on a change-of-venue request

[bmielke]

Continuing on in the article.

The only juror to speak to reporters afterward, truck driver Richard Gardiner, said the jury voted 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal, with the majority seeing the government's case as weak. He said he held out for a conviction because he "did think it was a threat

and he not only has this retrial but also a CT trial.

In a separate case, Turner is awaiting trial on state charges in Connecticut. He is accused of "inciting injury to persons" for urging blog readers to "take up arms" against state lawmakers there who proposed legislation to give Roman Catholic lay members more control over parish finances.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02393.html

[fortinbras]

It turns out that the federal prosecutors in the NJ case want to keep the jury from being told of Hal Turner's cozy arrangements with the FBI:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/021610_ ... trial.html

[Doktor Avalanche]

Guess they've never heard of Tom Metzger.

Look it up kids.

Damn...is he still kicking?