After Brewington's online speech was gathered and used to charge him with the felony of "striking fear" into a judge, he got a public defender to represent him. The prosecution, in stark violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, refused to allow Brewington's attorney to see the hundreds of pages of blog posts gathered by the unlicensed psychologist and produced as evidence against his client.
To make matters worse, the still unlicensed psychologist got up and testified at the criminal trial. Brewington's lawyer was not able to effectively cross-examine him because he had not seen the blog posts. So when the prosecutor got up to give his closing arguments, he was able to get away with lying to the jury about the content of those crucial blog posts.
And lie he did. Big time.
After Brewington called the judge a "child abuser" in one post, the prosecution changed the wording to "child molester" in his closing argument before the jury. Brewington's attorney could have defended the abuser remark because the judge had arguably hurt the children by tearing them away from their father. But there was no defending the molester remark, which, of course, Brewington never actually made.
And so the stacked jury of five women and one man convicted Brewington and sentenced him to five years in prison. Note the major similarities between the cases of Gault and Brewington:
1. Both were convicted under statutes so vague that they violated the due process clause. Blog posts that "strike fear" into the reader are about as hard to define as phone calls deemed "lewd" by the listener. No one can really be sure when he is or is not violating such a law.
2. Both were denied an opportunity to confront and cross examine crucial evidence. If Brewington could have confronted the psychologist, and Gault could have confronted Mrs. Cook, we could have identified what words were actually spoken by each defendant. And we could have learned what words were actually spoken by someone else and falsely attributed to the accused.
3. Both were given long term incarceration for what amounted to poor taste. People should never be sentenced to long terms of imprisonment because they used words that were in poor taste but did not contain threats of violence. Neither Brewington nor Gault ever threatened anyone.
Since I am not a citizen of Indiana, I am free to state the obvious fact that Judge Hill, who presided over the Brewington criminal matter, is an abuser of his authority. In fact, he is a molester of the United States constitution. His conduct in convening kangaroo courts designed to imprison those who criticize judges strikes fear into the hearts of freedom loving people everywhere.
In fairness, there ought to be a law that criminalizes the publication of judicial rulings that "strike fear" into the hearts of Indiana citizens. Such a law is needed to take Judge Hill out of his black robe and put him in an orange jumpsuit. Clearly, we need to protect our constitution from dangerous predators.