A.G. Gancarski
In a four-hour trial Wednesday afternoon at the Duval County Courthouse, co-defendants Diallo Sekou, Twala Wilkons, and Briana Odom stood trial on misdemeanor charges of obstructing a highway on Dec. 8, 2014. The group held protest actions during the morning rush hour on Interstate 95 and that cloudy Monday afternoon rush hour on Hart Bridge. Wilkons and Sekou faced two counts for being at both protests; Odom, only charges for the afternoon.
The defense for those three members of the “Jax 19” who were arrested wasn’t grounded nearly as much in the right to social protest as in semantics. At several points during the trial, defense lawyers attempted to establish that the co-defendants technically never obstructed the highway, because traffic never came to a complete stop. They also argued the case should have been tried as a civil rather than criminal case.
Neither tactic took hold. Also, the defense’s contention that the responding police officer did not signal the protesters to stop the protest failed to move the judge in the bench trial.
The state’s case was predicated on officer testimony describing the protest and aftermath. The defense attempted to exploit minor discrepancies in the testimony to no avail. The prosecution showed a 20-minute video of traffic being slowed to well short of walking speed, and in the traffic, an ambulance, which the prosecutor referred to repeatedly to cultivate the emotional appeal.
Of course, emotional appeal works both ways. Wilkons cited Martin Luther King, Jr. in contending that the “plan simply was to march over the bridge.”
“Marching is an effective way to get attention of civilians to create change, and we were simply marching down the bridge,” she said.
In a different city, or with a jury trial in which jurors were sympathetic to the issues raised by the protests, such appeals might have gained traction. But not on this day in this court.
The co-defendants had sought acquittal. They got adjudication withheld: 12 months probation, 100 hours of community service, and were held liable jointly and severally for the $4,200 cost of the investigation (to be split 19 ways, presumably). The media, except for this outlet, was not there, a sharp contrast from the protests themselves.
Florida Politics spoke with Sekou after the trial, and he was clearly disappointed. “Freedom fighters such as Dick Gregory and Martin Luther King went through the same. Sacrifice is part of activism. We’ll keep on fighting.”
The State Attorney’s Office was not pursuing prison time. Indeed, what good would that have done? The point of this trial was to send a message that protest is fine and all, but not the kind of protest that comes at the expense of public safety. To pursue a stronger punishment would have been counterproductive, perhaps inspiring more protests of the punishment itself. Having these activists on probation may have some salutary benefits also, in terms of keeping them and their movement in check.
